Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Royal Opera House

Mr. John Randall: What discussions he has had with Sadler's Wells over the impact of the decision to close the Royal Opera house. [57241]

The Minister for Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): I met representatives from Sadler's Wells, the Arts Council of England and the London Arts Board on 23 September. All parties agreed that Sadler's Wells should not suffer as a result of the Royal Opera house board's closure strategy.

Mr. Randall: I thank the Minister for his reply. Following those discussions, can he give any assurances on the long-term job security of the employees, especially the musicians and the artists of the Royal Ballet and Royal Opera house, given that they are the innocent victims of mismanagement and the gross ineptitude of his Department?

Mr. Howarth: No one disputes the artistic excellence of the ballet and opera at the Royal Opera house over the

years, but it is widely acknowledged that the standard of management has not been what it should have been. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that primary responsibility for that must rest with the management, although some industrial practices have perhaps not been conducive to cost efficiencies.
The new board and the unions have addressed these issues realistically. I congratulate and thank them for that and I believe that the way is now open to secure the prospects of those who work at the Royal Opera house and create its artistic excellence. When it opens at the end of next year, the new house will be one of the most exciting and advanced venues for lyric theatre in the world, so we have much to look forward to.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will the Minister confirm that he has complete and unqualified confidence in the present chairman of the Royal Opera house?

Mr. Howarth: Certainly I do. Sir Colin Southgate and his colleagues on the new board have addressed their responsibilities seriously and realistically. I believe that the way is open to finding a resolution to the difficulties and that we can secure a future for world-class opera and ballet at Covent Garden.

National Lottery

Helen Jackson: In what ways environmental projects have benefited from the national lottery. [57242]

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The Heritage Lottery Fund, the Millennium Commission and the National Lottery Charities Board have all funded environmental projects. Next year, the new opportunities fund will launch an initiative to help urban and rural communities across the country to understand, improve and care for their environment, in particular through the creation, improvement or acquisition of green spaces.

Helen Jackson: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. My constituency, like many others, includes both


beautiful countryside and large concentrations of people. That can be a problem for the countryside, but we want to use the potential for opening up the countryside to more educational and leisure uses. How, practically, can the lottery help us to get such projects off the ground?

Mr. Smith: Our proposals for further initiatives under the new opportunities fund specifically aimed at environmental improvement will help to do precisely that. We will shortly issue a consultation paper on them. We will be interested to see what the public have to say and will then come to Parliament with specific proposals on the new initiatives.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: In view of the substantial funding for environmental projects by the lottery in Regent's Park, why is it necessary to introduce parking charges there at weekends?

Mr. Smith: I confess that I am unaware of the particular lottery funded scheme or schemes to which the hon. Gentleman refers. However, he touches on an extraneous matter: the Royal Parks agency proposal to introduce weekend parking charges to assist with the general upkeep of the parks and their management at weekends, when their usage is greatest. That is ultimately a matter for the agency to determine.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many areas of Britain could qualify under the new funding arrangements for environmental projects? Does he also agree that, in the coalfield areas, which have suffered greatly as a result, in some cases, of 100 years of pit life and which are now scarred by the closure of all those pits, a lot of work needs to be done, not least in order to provide additional work? Will he give a guarantee that, when he speaks at Barnsley tomorrow, he will pay attention to those issues, so that coalfield areas will be able to benefit from the available funding?

Mr. Smith: I can indeed give my hon. Friend precisely that guarantee. As he knows, we are holding a major conference in Barnsley tomorrow, which will look at ways in which the lottery can provide assistance to the coalfield areas. The extent of the problem is perhaps most graphically illustrated by the fact that, to date, the amount spent by the lottery good causes in Barnsley is £17 per head, whereas the national average for England as a whole is –70 per head.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Does the Minister agree that parks are an essential part of our national heritage? To that end, will he use his good offices to influence the national lottery people, some of whom do not work like normal people, to consider giving parks more lottery funding? I have in mind some of the parks that are rotting in many local authority areas, and it is to local authorities that are strapped for cash that help should be given. One such park in my area is Hesketh park, which is based on Lord Birkenhead's design and which we really want to preserve.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is assiduous and effective in promoting the interests of his constituency. I was delighted to see that his representations regarding the fate of the pier at Southport have now been fully taken

account of by the Heritage Lottery Fund. He will know that the fund has for some time had a major programme of support for the improvement and enhancement of urban parks. I strongly support that programme: it has already done a lot of good work and there is more in the pipeline. In addition, the work that the new opportunities fund is able to put in place under the green spaces initiative will also help.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: In what ways education projects will benefit from the national lottery. [57243]

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: How education projects will benefit from the national lottery. [57256]

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The new opportunities fund will provide £400 million for out-of-school-hours activities, including child care; it will spend £300 million on new technology training for teachers and librarians; and next year it will help to increase access to lifelong learning, particularly by contributing to the creation of the public library network. That is in addition to the work that the Millennium Commission is already doing in funding projects such as the university of the highlands and islands and the Everyman books for schools.

Mr. Cunningham: Can my right hon. Friend elaborate on that answer? I am sure that he is aware that Coventry was one of the pioneers of adult education. Although we welcome his announcement about children's education, will he tell us more about how he plans to develop adult education?

Mr. Smith: Alongside the green spaces initiative to which I have already referred, one of the key proposals for new opportunities fund initiatives is support for lifelong learning in the community—precisely the area to which my hon. Friend rightly draws attention. We shall shortly issue a consultation paper setting out our ambitions in that respect.

Mr. Griffiths: Although we greatly welcome the £500 million for education from the lottery under the new opportunities fund, will my right hon. Friend consider initiatives for the most deprived areas?

Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. I have already issued a new set of directions to all the lottery distributors, including the new opportunities fund, to ensure that they pay attention to the particular needs of areas of social deprivation. One of the things that I have always felt is important in lottery policy is that it should not be only wealthy areas of the country—represented by the well heeled, the well advised and the people who can afford consultants and readily produce business plans—that benefit from the funds of the national lottery. People of all classes and from all parts of the country play the national lottery; people of all classes and from all parts of the country should benefit from it.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: In view of the answers given to the three questions on the Order Paper which have already been reached, has the right hon. Gentleman dispensed with the additionality principle?

Mr. Smith: Not at all. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the additionality principle is that
we will make no case-by-case reductions on conventional public spending programmes to take account of awards from the Lottery. The money raised by the Lottery will not replace public expenditure".
That is a quotation from the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), in September 1994. We stand firmly by that principle.

Mr. John Bercow: The Secretary of State has given the game away. He is not in favour of case-by-case reductions; he treats the whole budget as one case and makes a reduction accordingly. Given that lottery funds are now being used to fund mainstream education projects, is it not the case that the additionality principle is worth no more than a discarded Labour election pledge? Now that the right hon. Gentleman has been exposed as a pickpocket of lottery funds, will he tell the House how many other instances of such pickpocketing it should take into account?

Mr. Smith: Judging by the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he disagrees passionately with the former leader of his party. That does not surprise me in the least, given the extent of division in the Tory party these days.
In answer to the main apparent thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question, surely he agrees that a national programme of after-school clubs for children has never been funded to the extent that we are proposing, and that it will be of enormous benefit to children and parents throughout the country. He should also acknowledge that we put that proposal to the electorate during the election campaign last year; they supported it, and we are fulfilling the commitments that we gave them.

Music Teaching

Dr. Vincent Cable: What representations he has made to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in relation to the teaching of music in schools. [57244]

The Minister for Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has policy responsibility for the teaching of music in schools, but my Department has a vital interest in ensuring that the value of the arts is recognised in the curriculum and other education policies. My right hon. Friend and I work closely with education Ministers on that and other subjects of mutual interest to our Departments.

Dr. Cable: Will the Minister acknowledge that there is much concern among musicians and educators about the Government's decision to axe music from the early years school curriculum, despite the availability of a small fund that will help schools that are already well organised in that field? Will he give an assurance that he will continue to press the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to ensure that all children can benefit from a well rounded curriculum that includes the arts and music?

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong—no such decision has been made. I acknowledge that there is confusion about the matter—clearly the

hon. Gentleman, too, is confused. I assure him that there has been no downgrading of music or the arts in the national curriculum. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is on record as emphasising that
the development of a child's creativity and imagination is an essential part of a balanced education.
There remains a statutory obligation to offer a broad and balanced education and to include music as a foundation subject.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: How much talent is lost simply because some parents cannot afford to pay for classes for their children to learn the violin, the piano, the 'cello or a wind instrument? Surely that is a waste that the country can ill afford.

Mr. Howarth: I agree with my hon. Friend. There has been a worrying decline—charted, for example, by the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music—in the proportion of children in some groups playing musical instruments and taking music lessons in school.
There is tremendous talent in our country. Anyone who had the opportunity, as I did last week, to attend the schools prom at the Albert hall will have no doubt that there is an extraordinary wealth of talent among our young people.
I believe that the new youth music trust that my right hon. Friend has established will make an important difference by enhancing support for musical activity and young people's musical development; as will the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment—which were included in "Fair Funding"—to safeguard local authority provision for music services.

Concessionary Television Licences

6. Mr. Steve Webb: When he expects to conclude his review of the arrangements for concessionary television licences. [57245]

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): Our aim is to reach final conclusions on all aspects of the BBC funding review by the end of next year.

Mr. Webb: Will the Minister comment on the press report that the review group will be chaired by the Chancellor's favourite millionaire? While I have nothing against millionaires per se, does the Minister agree that such a person is not well placed to understand the difficulties that many older pensioners, in particular, face in affording a television licence?

Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman will know that no official announcement has been made, and I am sure that he would not expect me to comment on speculation. I reassure him that the Government recognise that the current structure of the concessionary licence scheme is imperfect and unsatisfactory. It is time for a detailed examination of the scheme, and the review panel will conduct such an examination.

Mr. David Winnick: The licence fee is extraordinarily good value and should be retained.


However, does my hon. Friend accept that many pensioners find it increasingly difficult to pay the licence fee, even though, as they grow older—certainly as they enter their 70s—they are bound to spend more time at home watching television? Does my hon. Friend therefore recognise that—together with all the other anomalies of which we are aware—it is simply just that pensioners should receive far greater concessions than they do at present? I hope that they will before too long.

Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend will be aware that I share his concern about this matter, and I take this opportunity to congratulate him on the excellent work that he has done in this area.
We recognise that the present scheme is unsatisfactory and unfair, but we cannot make any promises that the review will lead to a general concession for all pensioners or for other groups of people. That could lead to substantial increases for all other licence fee payers. However, we can promise that we shall give detailed consideration to the unsatisfactory nature of the present arrangements.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I am sorry to press the point, but I am sure that the hon. Lady will welcome this opportunity to scotch rumours that the BBC funding review will be conducted not by someone who knows about broadcasting but by an economist who is one of the Chancellor's closest friends and married to the Chancellor's special adviser. On reconsideration, would the hon. Lady not love to take this opportunity to dissociate herself from the culture of cronyism that seems to be invading every aspect of this Government?

Janet Anderson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is pure speculation, and I am sure that he will not expect me to comment until an official announcement has been made.
We will take no lessons from the Tories regarding allegations of cronyism. I remind the hon. Gentleman that one of his colleagues in another place, Baroness Denton of Wakefield, said that she had never knowingly appointed a Labour supporter.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: The important factor in this review will be the terms of reference for the review committee. There is tremendous discrimination in the way concessionary licences are issued at present, and it is important to ensure that those on pensions receive the assistance they need in the form of concessionary television licences.
Will the Minister brief us as to the terms of reference that the committee will consider when reviewing the current television licence arrangements? Can we be assured that all pensioners will be treated fairly and will receive their just entitlements?

Janet Anderson: I reassure my hon. Friend that the panel will be asked to consider in detail the present arrangements governing the concessionary scheme. Although we cannot make any promises that the review will lead to a general concession for all pensioners or for other groups of people, we recognise that the current system is unfair and unsatisfactory, and should be considered in detail.

Sports Provision

Mr. Simon Hughes: What moneys his Department allocated for sports provision on housing estates in the (a) current and (b) next financial year. [57246]

The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): As this is the first sports question, may I, on behalf of the House, convey congratulations to Greg Rusedski on Sunday's victory in the Paris indoor open? He is not only a good tennis player but a very nice guy.
My Department's funding for sport is channelled through the English Sports Council and the UK Sports Council. The English Sports Council works with sports governing bodies, local authorities and other sport organisations to ensure that all sections of the community—including those living on housing estates—benefit from this funding. The Government are convinced of the contribution that sports initiatives can make to neighbourhood renewal.

Mr. Hughes: Three cheers for tennis, Madam Speaker. The Minister's comment about Greg Rusedski was more specific than the answer that followed; may I push him further? He knows from his constituency and his London background that, for very little money, it is possible to provide cages, creating football, basketball and netball possibilities in urban areas, close to where people live and safe; and that if the cages are properly looked after they are secure and very good value for money. Will he consider an initiative to try to get such proposals up and running—with partners, if possible—in local authority areas where large numbers of people live in council housing? If I presented him with a proposal for the borough of Southwark, to be run as a pilot scheme, would he consider it to see whether it might be extended to other local authorities throughout the country?

Mr. Banks: The short answer is yes to both questions. The hon. Gentleman knows that the sports lottery fund injects a great deal of money into inner-city areas. I may risk the ire of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) by saying so, but London has received £100 million in lottery sports grants, a great deal of which has gone into inner-city areas such as my constituency in Newham. I hasten to add that that has nothing to do with me, as Sports Minister, but it is rewarding to see the amount of money that is going in.
I am certain that sports funding in inner-city areas can do a hell of a lot to motivate young people, especially those who, tragically, are unemployed or are likely to be wasting their time hanging around. We should use sport to promote social inclusion. That is a popular term at the moment, but the Government are determined to make progress on it. I should be delighted to talk to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) about his proposal.

Mr. John Maxton: Will my hon. Friend agree, however, that one of the best ways to improve sporting facilities—and to put money into those facilities—in housing estates and other poor areas of the country is to switch from bid-led to need-led lottery


funding? The Government have begun to do so and we welcome the changes that have been made, but the process could be taken considerably further.

Mr. Banks: I agree with my hon. Friend. The English Sports Council's draft lottery strategy identifies several ways in which more help could be given—for example, by using the small grants programme and developing the priority areas initiative. We must pursue those avenues.
It is crucial that we consider needs instead of sitting and waiting for applications to come in. Repeatedly, we find that those who can work up a decent bid get lottery money whereas those who desperately need the money but lack the ability to produce such a bid lose out. That is why we wanted a strategy, and that is what the strategy is about.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Given that a housing estate could presumably, if correctly sponsored, make an application under sportsmatch arrangements, is it true that the Government are contemplating moving the funding for sportsmatch from the Department to the appropriate lottery distributor; and how does the Minister square that with additionality, as it appears to be direct substitution?

Mr. Banks: I do not know which council estate the right hon. Gentleman comes from, but we are looking at sportsmatch—a wonderful initiative, which we totally support—and consulting on it at the moment. There is much to be said for shifting its operation to the English Sports Council, which is doing something very similar, but in that case the money would be ring-fenced so that it went with the scheme from the Department to the English Sports Council. Money would not be lost; additional money would go to the ESC. We are still consulting on the matter and listening carefully to what people say.

All-Seater Stadiums

Mr. Peter L. Pike: What assessment his Department has made of the resources needed to make all Premier and Nationwide football grounds all-seating. [57249]

The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): None. Clubs in the Football Association Premier league and the first division of the Football League were required to go all-seater by August 1994. Clubs newly promoted to the first division since that date have had three years from the date of their promotion to install seating at their grounds. Bury, Bradford City, Crewe Alexandra, Oxford United and Stockport County, which have all gained promotion to the first division since August 1994, are the only clubs in the top two divisions in England still to go all-seater. Bradford and Oxford have until August 1999 to do so, and the other three clubs have until August 2000.
Following the review of the all-seater policy in 1992, clubs outside the top two divisions have until August 1999 to ensure that any remaining terracing meets stringent safety requirements.

Mr. Pike: The Government last year were quick to extend the resources available to the Football Trust to enable it to play a major part in ensuring that we had the

widest range of high-standard grounds in the world and high safety standards, which will be important in our 2006 world cup bid. However, many clubs in the lower divisions have severe financial problems. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the Football Trust will be able to continue that work, to ensure that every ground can provide the safest and best possible facilities for spectators?

Mr. Banks: I certainly want to encourage that development, because I appreciate that the grass roots of football in this country are becoming rather dry. There is a great deal of money sloshing around in football, but it is not filtering down far enough. That is essentially a matter for the football authorities, but I can assure my hon. Friend that anything that I and the Government can do to induce them to bring about a more equitable distribution of that money throughout football we will do with great enthusiasm.
We allocated an extra £55 million funding package for the Football Trust almost as soon as we came to office. I am delighted that Burnley has received more than £3 million worth of grant aid from the Football Trust since 1990. We want to make sure that the best standards apply throughout our grounds, and I will look sympathetically at any proposal to ensure that the work of the Football Trust goes on to enable that to happen.

Mr. John Greenway: I welcome what the Minister said, and share the concern of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). The second and third division clubs—as the Minister knows, I am the president of York City—simply do not have the resources to build all-seater stadiums, even if we could get planning consent.
As the question is about resources, does the Minister agree with the comments made recently to all Members of Parliament in a letter from the chief executive of the Football League, Mr. Richard Scudamore—that the continuation of the current BSkyB television deal is essential for the money to filter down into the second and third division clubs? If that changes, what pressure can the Minister and his Department bring to bear on the Premier league to ensure a substitution for that funding if we end up with a pay-per-view deal?

Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman tries to take me into other areas, which are dealt with by competition Ministers.
There are a number of things happening in football and in sport generally that alarm me. There is a knock-on effect from decisions in other areas, nationally and, much more significantly, through the European Union. That is why I personally—this is not Government policy—have been strongly in favour of considering some special regime for sport, which would not make it separate from European law or national law, but would recognise the particular interests and problems of sport in serving a local community. That applies particularly to Football League clubs in cities such as York or Chester, where there is a terrible problem about which supporters are coming to lobby the House on Wednesday.
The hon. Gentleman can be certain that the Government will do all we can to ensure that football remains vibrant and active at the level where it really matters—at the grass roots in places such as Chester and York.

National Lottery

Ms Oona King: What responses he has received from the good causes to the announcement about their future after 2001. [57250]

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): I announced in July that each of the good causes—arts, sport, heritage and charities—will continue to receive one sixth of lottery good cause funding after 2001.

Ms King: I welcome that announcement. Does that mean that the lottery boards will be able to engage in long-term financial planning? What other measures does my right hon. Friend have in mind to allow such desperately needed long-term planning to take place?

Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. For the first time, the guarantee that we have put in place post-2001—which is new; it was never done by the previous Government when they were in office—gives each distributor a guarantee of forward funding, and enables that distributor to plan ahead properly. In addition, the development of strategies—which, again, is for the first time a responsibility on each of the distributors—will enable them to put the plans into written form for public consumption, so that everyone knows precisely where they stand.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will the Secretary of State comment on the latest figures, which we produced with the help of the Library, that show that, between now and 2005, about £3.7 billion which should have gone to the arts, sports, charities and heritage will be siphoned off, to help fill the Chancellor's economic black hole, into the new control freak fund? Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that, by turning the national lottery into the Government's lottery, he has betrayed the original good causes and also his party's policy before the general election?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with these views:
The lottery was not supposed to be a fund-raising mechanism for the Government. That makes it simply another form of taxation. Why should people have to pay more taxes? … why give the Government a great big bucket of money?"—[Official Report, 25 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 1095-96.]
The Secretary of State may recognise the florid language of his hon. Friend the Minister for Sport. Those were his words before the election, but the Government have betrayed them since.

Mr. Smith: It may come as no surprise that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. He may have noticed, for example, what the Arts Council of England said when, in September, I was able to announce the £1.8 billion guarantee for income over the present licence period for the council and an additional £50 million. The council's response was as follows:
The Arts Council is delighted … at the announcement of an additional £50 million".
The hon. Gentleman completely ignores the fact that the new opportunities fund was a commitment that we gave to the people of this country during the general election campaign. Unlike Conservative Members, we believe in keeping our commitments.

Lodge Hill Residential Centre, West Sussex

Mr. Howard Flight: What representations he has received regarding the Lodge Hill residential centre in West Sussex. [57251]

The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): I was quite stunned to note that I have received no representations about the Lodge Hill residential centre, not even from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Flight: I was under the impression that Lord Cowdrey has made certain representations to the Minister for Sport. Lodge Hill is a youth centre in West Sussex that has provided residential courses for hundreds of thousands of students. The county council can no longer afford to maintain it, so it is being set up on a charitable basis. Will the Minister consider, within the powers available to him, some back-up support from lottery funding, and also the possibility of the centre being used in connection with the Government's new deal facilities?

Mr. Banks: I will certainly consult Lord Cowdrey, whom I see pretty regularly, to ascertain what has happened to his letter. Perhaps it was lost in the post.
I am aware of the centre—it provides good outward bound courses, including canoeing and a rope course. I am a great supporter of canoeing and I have often contemplated hanging myself, so it is clear that I am much in support of the centre. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman talks to me, and we will try to contrive a lottery application.

Digital Broadcasting

Ms Sally Keeble: What assessment he has made of the impact of digital broadcasting on local radio stations. [57252]

Janet Anderson: Digital radio will increase listener choice and improve the listening experience. I am aware of considerable interest in local multiplex licences from a number of consortiums, and I look forward to the response when the Radio Authority advertises local multiplex licences shortly.

Ms Keeble: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is she aware that many local commercial radio stations that are the only broadcasters will not have access to digital broadcasting? That includes Radio Northants, which covers my constituency. Will my hon. Friend investigate with colleagues the possibility of getting the Ministry of Defence to bring forward its release dates for its current allocation of the digital spectrum, which I think is scheduled for 2007? Is she aware that, if the MOD did that, it would be possible for all local commercial radio stations to provide the advantages of digital broadcasting to their listeners?

Janet Anderson: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. I assure her that we recognise the concerns of radio stations, such as her local station Northants 96. The Government recognise that there is insufficient spectrum to enable every local radio station to take part in digital radio. We are aware of the fact that


the industry is currently preparing an assessment of its further needs and we shall consider that assessment carefully. The Government's aim is to ensure that the advances of digital radio are available to as many people and as wide an audience as possible.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Although the broadcasting developments affecting local radio stations are welcome, does the Minister share my concern about the removal from many stations of regional broadcasters that cover our activities in the House of Commons? What action is she taking to compensate for what I consider to be a direct consequence of the lack of attention that the Government pay to the House and the contempt in which Parliament is held?

Janet Anderson: That is a matter for the broadcasters. The hon. Lady may not be aware that there was a comprehensive debate about this matter in the House only the other day, so she may wish to refer to my response to that debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Millennium Experience

Mr. Crispin Blunt: If he will make a statement on the progress of the New Millennium Experience Company in raising sponsorship for the millennium experience. [57270]

Mr. Michael Fabricant: What is the total amount of moneys currently identified for sponsorship of zones within the Millennium dome. [57274]

Mr. Austin Mitchell: How much of the funding for the millennium experience from sponsors is (a) committed, (b) promised and (c) made in kind. [57275]

Mr. Andrew Robathan: If he will list the sponsors currently involved in the Millennium dome. [57276]

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Mandelson): The New Millennium Experience Company is to be congratulated on the significant progress it has made in raising sponsorship for the millennium experience. More than £100 million has been committed by Tesco, Manpower, BT, BSkyB, Marks and Spencer, British Airways, the Corporation of London, BAA, Camelot, GEC, British Aerospace and Thames Water. A further £60 million from 10 major companies is subject to detailed negotiation. It is not possible, at this stage, to divide sponsorship support into specific categories, but the distinction will be made in the company's annual report and accounts, which will be published and laid in the Libraries of both Houses.

Mr. Blunt: In raising sponsorship for the millennium experience, does the right hon. Gentleman think that his real and perceived power over these companies as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry helps or hinders?

Mr. Mandelson: My role in relation to the dome is as shareholder, not as head of the sponsorship team.
Although I receive regular reports from the board of the New Millennium Experience Company on its significant progress in raising sponsorship, I have never been, and do not intend to be, involved in procuring or negotiating sponsorship deals, so no conflict arises.

Mr. Fabricant: Of the £100 million committed, what percentage is subject to an irrevocable, signed contract?

Mr. Mandelson: The companies have committed in the way I have described, and I am pleased that they have done so. No one has ever denied that raising £150 million of private sponsorship is a considerable challenge: of course it is. Then again, no one has ever taken the decision to stage such a unique national event. The sums and the event are without precedent. Our best and most forward-looking companies are picking up the challenge because they see their commercial interest coinciding with the national interest. It would be nice if, like those companies, Conservative Members identified with the national interest.

Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman finds that answer unsatisfactory and he wants to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Fabricant: Yes, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Good, I have got the point, thank you.

Mr. Mitchell: I am delighted to hear my right hon. Friend exuding confidence about the prospects for raising the money, but, if we are still £60 million short and money is trickling in as slowly as press reports suggest, will not that create the real danger that, instead of being the celebration of British history, achievements and prospects that it should be, the millennium experience will be a mammoth piece of commercial hucksterism in which companies from McDonald's to Tesco are allowed to parade their products on the back of £580 million of public money?

Mr. Mandelson: I do not think that my hon. Friend was listening to my reply. I said that a further £60 million from 10 major companies is subject to detailed negotiation. If my arithmetic is correct, that takes us over the target that we have already set. We are getting a great deal for our sponsorship. For example, the children's promise scheme, which is a joint campaign between the New Millennium Experience Company and Marks and Spencer, brings together seven children's charities. It will encourage everyone to donate their final hour's earnings of this millennium to the children of the next. That is something that the entire House can and should support.
I am grateful to my noble Friend Lord Montague of Oxford, whose magnificent salesmanship in the other place has already delivered 86 pledge cards. I will ensure that pledge cards are put in the Whips' Offices of all the parties, including the Conservative party, so that Conservative Members can sign up to children's promise


and give their last hour's earnings in this millennium for the good cause of children in the next. We will see how much we get from them.

Mr. Robathan: I look forward to receiving my card—

The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): The hon. Gentleman will be getting his cards very shortly.

Mr. Robathan: Not as soon as the Minister will get a yellow card.
The Secretary of State failed to respond to the question asked by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—£60 million may be the subject of detailed negotiation, but that is not quite the same as having £60 million pledged. What contingency plans does the right hon. Gentleman have in place should the money not be forthcoming? Will he state categorically that he will not dip into the taxpayers' pocket if it is not forthcoming?

Mr. Mandelson: I will happily give that commitment, because the sums that we need have already been identified—they are coming. I understand that Conservative Members are desperately disappointed with the good news that I am able to share with the House today—they will not be happy until the private sponsorship finally fails to materialise, the doors fail to open and the public fail to turn up. Conservative Members will be very disappointed and there will be a lot of long Tory faces at the beginning of 2000, because the millennium dome and experience will be a tremendous success. They will be sorry that they have lacked the enthusiasm and patriotism to support them throughout.

Mr. Norman Baker: Can I put it to the Minister, gently, that there is at least a perception of a conflict of interest between his roles as Minister responsible for the millennium dome and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? For example, he is involved in regulating Manchester United's possible takeover by BSkyB while sponsorship from BSkyB is coming in for the millennium dome. Would it not be better—having his best interests at heart—if responsibility for the millennium dome were transferred, perhaps to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport?

Mr. Mandelson: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been, but the bid by BSkyB for Manchester United—let us get it the right way round—has been referred by me to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. My responsibilities for competition policy as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry require me to act fairly and impartially, and to be seen to do so. In carrying out these functions, I can categorically assure the House that I am in no way influenced by actual or potential offers being made by companies in support of the dome.

Mr. Richard Spring: Setting aside any possible conflicts of interest, does not the right hon. Gentleman understand the damage to the dome that has been done by his ridiculous announcements, including those on the sport of surfball, the androgynous figure, the use of a nappy, Siamese twins and so on? Given his failure to secure the total funding sum thus far,

in retrospect was he not unwise to liken himself to St. John the Baptist—who, far from attending champagne parties, lived on locusts and wild honey; whose message was never spin doctored, but one of repentance; and whose head, duly severed, ultimately landed up on a plate?

Mr. Mandelson: I do not know how long it took to write and rehearse that question before it was delivered. These are very tired remarks from Opposition Members; we hear constant cavilling, nit-picking and thread-pulling from the usual carping quarters. Opposition Members are absolutely desperate for the project to go wrong, are they not? They will be very disappointed.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: What discussions he has had with the United Kingdom's small breweries about promoting local beers during the period of the millennium experience. [57271]

Mr. Mandelson: The New Millennium Experience Company announced in April that it wanted to serve visitors to the dome with the United Kingdom's best traditionally brewed and popular beers. The company is in discussion with a number of local and regional brewers.

Mr. Quinn: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Black Dog Brewery Ltd. in Whitby will be one of the breweries approached? Without doubt, such a regional flavour will spread the millennium experience around the country. May I also make a plea for Whitby kippers, which would go particularly well with the beer?

Mr. Mandelson: I am sure that the very appropriately named Black Dog beer will be among those that are very hotly considered by the New Millennium Experience Company. As for Whitby's kippers and all the other magnificent products and services, moving the town into the dome might not be a bad idea. The town will certainly have an opportunity to tell its story in the dome under a project called "Our Town's Story", which will enable people from all over the country to tell their story for the benefit and enjoyment of millions of our fellow citizens.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Assets

Mr. Peter L. Pike: What impact there has been on the commissioners' assets arising out of the collapse of (a) hedge funds and (b) other financial institutions. [57280]

Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I am delighted to say that the commissioners have no investments in hedge funds or any other financial institutions that have collapsed. World stock markets have retreated considerably from the exceptionally high levels of earlier this year. The United Kingdom market, however, which is of most significance


to the commissioners, has given up only the advances that we saw earlier in the year, and since the end of September it has started to show greater stability and recovery.

Mr. Pike: I recognise my hon. Friend's points. Can he assure me that lower stock values have not made it impossible for the Church Commissioners to meet their commitment to provide the Church with funds to meet clergy stipends and pensions?

Mr. Bell: The commissioners use long-term financial assumptions when assessing their distribution capability and policy. They value their assets on an actuarial basis, rather than using current market values. That system looks to the income generated by investments and the likely growth of that income as the basis for levels of distribution, which helps to smooth the volatility in market values to which the question refers.

Sir Sydney Chapman: What impact there has been on the commissioners' assets as a result of the turbulence in the world's financial markets. [57282]

Mr. Bell: The commissioners' United Kingdom equities comprise a diversified portfolio, which has moved broadly in line with the markets. The commissioners' portfolio continues to out-perform both the index and its benchmark. The commissioners also have significant holdings in commercial, agricultural and residential property. Such diversification of risk has helped to cushion them against any short-term volatility in the stock market.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Given the problems in Japan and the far east and, indeed, the threat of recession nearer to home, will the hon. Gentleman be a little more forthcoming about some of the commissioners' changes to their investment portfolio? Who advises them on changes to their asset allocation strategy?

Mr. Bell: The commissioners use a range of advisers in making their decisions, including their actuaries Watson Wyatt and property advisers DTZ Debenham Thorpe; the WM company and the Investment Property Databank. During 1997, the commissioners conducted a comprehensive review of their investment and asset allocation strategy which aims to provide stable and long-term support for the Church's ministry. As a result, they are rebalancing their assets in favour of securities—primarily UK securities—while reducing their property exposure. In relation to far eastern equities, the valuation losses have been proportionately minor compared with other institutional funds, due to our relatively low exposure to those areas.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: We have seen the effect of turbulence on the Church's portfolio, but what has been the effect of Viagra on the Church's financial standing and that of its portfolio?

Mr. Bell: I am happy to say that our investment in the drug company—which fulfils our ethical investment policy to the hilt—has turned over a recent profit of about £3 million in three months.

Ethical Investments

Ann Clwyd: If the Church Commissioners will make it their policy not to invest in countries where state organised torture, murder and disappearances are or have been prevalent. [57283]

Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The commissioners' ethical investment policy is not to invest in companies whose management practices are judged by us to be unacceptable in whatever country they operate. We also aim to invest in companies that are conscientious concerning issues of human rights.

Ann Clwyd: Can my hon. Friend therefore explain why one of the companies in which the Church Commissioners invested was responsible for the armoured carriers on the streets of Jakarta, which sprayed unarmed demonstrators with dye and which are, quite clearly, being used for internal repression?

Mr. Bell: I take this opportunity to reiterate our investment policy on investments in companies before I refer specifically to my hon. Friend's point. The sale of military equipment to regimes with poor human rights records remains a strong concern. Companies in which the commissioners invest confirm that none of the equipment they have exported could be used for internal repression.
In relation to GEC's sales to Indonesia, GEC has confirmed that they amounted to £20 million in 1996–97 and have dropped to £4.6 million in 1998. The sales comprised non-offensive simulation and training equipment, as well as broadcasting transmitters and other forms of telephony.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Following the thrust of the question from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), will the hon. Gentleman put it to his colleagues that, rather than having an English-centred view of what is acceptable in terms of international investment, it might be an improvement if, in future, the decisions were also approved by a representative body of the Lambeth conference of worldwide Anglican churches? Without prejudicing the view of some of us that the Church of England should be disestablished, could he also ensure that once a year the commissioners talk to English Members of Parliament and take their advice on what investments should be made on behalf of the Church?

Mr. Bell: I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestions. The statutory responsibility of the Church Commissioners is, of course, to this House, and their duty is to provide the wherewithal for the Church to meet its commitments. In relation to the wider question to which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) referred, the commissioners look to the United Kingdom Government and the recently formulated European Union code on arms transfer to put in place safeguards to prevent the sort of sales to which my hon. Friend referred. In that context, the Foreign Office's recent announcement that it will ask two


non-governmental organisations—Save the Children and Amnesty International—to advise on human rights issues is most welcome.

Mr. Norman Baker: What assessment the commissioners have made of the compatibility of holdings in GEC with their investment policy. [57284]

Mr. Bell: The commissioners' investment in GEC is consistent with the ethical investment working group's view that nations have a right to defend themselves and to engage in peacekeeping initiatives and with the group's belief in the legitimacy of an indigenous defence industry supplying equipment under Government licence. Given GEC's corporate restructuring, however, the commissioners' holdings in the company will continue to be kept under close review by the working group.

Mr. Baker: If the holdings are consistent with the ethical investment policy, that policy is at fault—for the

reasons set out by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Why are the Church Commissioners, who presumably have some connection with Christianity, investing so heavily in a company that produces weapons of mass destruction?

Mr. Bell: The ethical investment working group represents the entire Church; it covers not only the Church Commissioners but the General Synod. As responsible shareholders, our duty is to make representations to companies on issues about which we are concerned and about which concern is reflected in the House. As part of that process, a meeting with Lord Prior, the former chairman of GEC, was held on 2 September to discuss the corporate changes in the company that have resulted in a greater focus on defence electronics. We find that GEC continues to listen to our concerns and to respond positively to them.

Central America (Hurricane Mitch)

Mr. Gary Streeter: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the humanitarian crisis in Central America and the aid being supplied by the United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I apologise to the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) for the lateness of his receiving a copy of my answer; we have just come back from a meeting of our national policy forum in Birmingham, and I wrote it on the train.
This year has seen a record number of major natural disasters, and when the crisis is brought under control we should look at how far environmental degradation is one of the causes. Hurricane Mitch, the 13th and fiercest storm of the 1998 hurricane season, has caused widespread damage and severe loss of life across central America, particularly affecting Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua are the worst affected countries.
Official reports suggest that 7,000 people have lost their lives, 9,000 people are missing and about 2.5 million people are badly affected. The terrible contrast between the death toll in central America and the much lower loss of life in the equally terrible floods in Bangladesh cruelly demonstrates the importance of disaster preparedness in countries that are vulnerable to natural disasters.
Since May 1997—a significant date—my Department has been working to strengthen the capacity of the international system to respond very quickly to emergencies wherever they arise. In the past, unco-ordinated shipments of aid and expertise often exacerbated such crises rather than helping.
The first step following Hurricane Mitch was the mobilisation of the United Nations disaster assessment teams; a British expert was made available. HMS Sheffield was in the vicinity and, at the request of the local authorities, was able to make available helicopters, engineers and medical support. My Department immediately offered support to non-governmental organisations that were already working in the countries and so could move very quickly. We have made available £200,000 to the Red Cross regional appeal, and supplies were flown in yesterday.
In Honduras, we have contributed £60,000 to the Pan American Health Organisation for basic health care needs; £94,525 to the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development for food and household items; and a grant of £100,000 to Christian Aid to supply medicines, temporary shelters, blankets and water containers. In Nicaragua, we have channelled £32,585 through the NGO Christian Action, Research and Education for the provision of safe water, food and clothes. We are also sending medical supplies to El Salvador to meet the needs of 20,000 people for three months. HMS Ocean and RFA Sir Tristram are also in the area and, at local request, are providing search and rescue and reconnaissance services.
In the past few days, the European Commission humanitarian office has allocated 6.8 million ecu for the disaster. We will do our best to ensure that that money is disbursed as soon as possible.
My Department has recently agreed a new, enlarged development programme for central America, to which we have committed £6 million. We are currently refocusing the programme to assist with reconstruction when the immediate crisis is under control.
Debt relief is, of course, irrelevant to coping with the immediate crisis, although crucial for reconstruction. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I have been working since we formed our Government to speed up the implementation of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative. Our aim is to ensure that every heavily indebted poor country that adopts economic policies that will reduce poverty will be on track for debt relief by the year 2000.
Before the crisis, Nicaragua was on track to qualify, and Honduras was unlikely to need debt relief. Obviously, the crisis will disrupt Nicaragua's International Monetary Fund programme and, sadly, Honduras's economy is likely to deteriorate so that it may well qualify for debt relief—not a good thing.
The Chancellor and I have announced that we are approaching the IMF and the World bank to try to get agreement that post-crisis countries should be treated more flexibly for debt relief. We are pursuing a similar proposal to benefit post-conflict countries such as Rwanda and Liberia. Progress on debt relief will be crucial to the reconstruction effort but does not assist in the immediate crisis. We must also ensure that post-crisis countries that are not heavily indebted, such as Bangladesh, also receive assistance for reconstruction.
Sadly, it is likely that the region will suffer similar hurricanes in future, so we must ensure that the reconstruction effort focuses on reducing vulnerability, for example through flood protection and the appropriate location of new housing. It will also be necessary to strengthen local and regional capacity to respond when disaster strikes. We have very recently agreed a major programme with the International Red Cross to strengthen such capacity in all developing countries.
We will continue to monitor the situation carefully through the United Nations and the International Red Cross and at local embassies. My Department will still be working in central America when media interest has moved elsewhere.

Mr. Streeter: I thank the Secretary of State for that response, and especially for coming back from what I know is an important conference in Birmingham to give it. I know that hon. Members of all parties will want to send a clear message of solidarity and support to the people of central America who have suffered such an appalling catastrophe.
One of my earliest boyhood memories is of the black-and-white television reports of the terrible tragedy at Aberfan. That tragic loss of 114 young lives shocked our nation for many years. We can only imagine what the people of central America are going through in the wake of losing more than 12,000 of their fellow citizens.
Does the Secretary of State agree—in one sense, she has already said she does—that those people will need and deserve our support for many years to come? Will she join me in paying warm tribute to the aid agencies, which have hit the ground running to try to bring emergency relief to the affected communities?


Given that the loss of life has been far greater than any that we have witnessed in recent years, does the Secretary of State believe that Britain's response to date has been commensurate? Has it been proportionate to the scale of the disaster? Is the right hon. Lady completely satisfied that her Department has been sufficiently generous in making funds available? Does she have any plans to make further moneys available in the near future?
Will the Secretary of State say a little more about the anticipated role of the Royal Navy ships on their way to the region? When are they expected to arrive and start work? Precisely what role does she expect our armed forces to play, and to whom will they be accountable? Many of them will be my constituents, so I have a particular interest in her reply.
Can the Secretary of State confirm that she has met in person the ambassadors of the central American countries affected by Hurricane Mitch to discuss their specific needs face to face? After two weeks of the crisis, with more lives being lost daily as a result of starvation and disease, what specific steps are being taken to avert the real threat of many more deaths from cholera and other diseases?
Is the Secretary of State aware that an humanitarian crisis, no matter how grave, is no excuse for sloppy government? Will she explain to the House why on the morning of Friday 6 November she dismissed debt relief as misleading and irrelevant, but by the afternoon of Saturday 7 November she issued a joint press statement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that made debt relief an essential part of Britain's response to the crisis? What changed in those 24 hours? How had debt relief moved from being irrelevant on Friday to being essential on Saturday? If the Secretary of State had planned to call for the speeding up of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative, why did she not say so on Friday? Does she accept that debt relief was relevant to the people of central America the second that Hurricane Mitch struck their towns and villages?
Will the Secretary of State clarify what the Government are now saying about debt relief? On Friday I called for an immediate moratorium on debt repayments from Honduras and Nicaragua to get them through the immediate crisis, and for a review of the situation thereafter. Does she now agree with that? Do the Government intend to suspend those countries' debt repayments? Do they intend to write off debt unilaterally? What is the Government's policy on debt relief? Is the Secretary of State's policy now the same as that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? If so, at what time on Saturday did their policies coincide? Given its recent track record, will the Secretary of State keep up pressure on the European Community humanitarian office to distribute its funds without delay?
Is the Secretary of State aware that tomorrow, the Disasters Emergency Committee of our leading non-governmental organisations is launching an appeal for funds through the nation's media to provide extra money for central America? Is she aware that the NGOs consider that they need at least £7 million to support their activities on the ground in the short term? Will she confirm that, unlike the Sudan appeal, this appeal will

have her unequivocal support, so that the great British public can give their money generously to the people of central America, knowing that they have her full backing?

Clare Short: It is nice to hear a Tory Member start by sending a message of solidarity to people who are suffering in central America. That is an historic move. Sadly the hon. Gentleman is trying to make cheap points and does not understand some of the points that he is making.
The ships that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are already there. HMS Sheffield was helping in Belize. The contrast between events there and in central America tells us something about disaster preparedness. The hurricane was predicted. Belize moved people, so, although there is devastation, there has been very little loss of life. After helping with reconstruction in Belize, HMS Sheffield asked my Department whether it was wanted in central America. We contacted the United Nations team. Sheffield has engineers, medical expertise and, importantly, helicopters. The other two ships are also in the vicinity, and are providing helicopters for reconnaissance.
I have not met the ambassadors. My Department has more direct contact with United Nations teams in the region than with the ambassadors, and communications are difficult. I shall meet them later, but getting things right on the ground is our priority.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman now understands that preventing cholera and hunger is the most immediate need. Like many people in the media, he seems not to understand how debt relief works. In such a crisis, when the mud slides, a person's chances of survival depend on those who are already in the country pulling them out. The international community can help only by having strengthened those capacities in a country.
The second stage, on which the international community needs to move quickly—we are among the best in the world at moving quickly—is bringing in food, water purification tablets and measures that prevent disease and hunger to stop the crisis getting even worse. That is what we are doing. When people are still being pulled out of the mud, anyone who asks whether debt relief will solve the problem clearly does not understand the nature of debt relief.
Britain did not announce large amounts of money on television—unlike some others, including the European Union—while not disbursing anything. We are good at finding out which non-governmental organisations are in the country and getting resources to them immediately so that they can act on the ground immediately and stop cholera. The list of detailed programmes in the statement shows what we have already done. We will try to make sure that the EU money that has been promised is disbursed as soon as possible, because that has not yet happened.
As my statement made clear, debt relief is complex, and I have offered the hon. Gentleman a briefing on the subject from my Department. Unilateral action in relation to IMF or World bank debt is impossible. It would be silly of one country to move alone on export credits, because the good country would simply ensure that ungenerous countries were paid. Moving together is the way to get progress on debt relief. The hon. Gentleman's call for unilateral action shows that he does not understand what he is talking about.
We have acted quickly to deal with the emergency. We had already acted to try to speed up debt relief, but the crisis means that Nicaragua, which would have qualified,


will now be in difficulties. We are talking to the IMF, the World bank and many of our partner countries to try to achieve a flexible attitude towards Nicaragua and Honduras, but that has not yet been secured. It is clear from what the hon. Gentleman has said, here and in the media, that he does not understand debt relief, and I repeat that I would be happy to arrange a briefing for him.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal. My view, along with the view of most people who are serious about Sudan, is that the problem there is the need to bring energy to the peace process. Britain has contributed to that. There is a ceasefire, and it is being extended. We are working hard to get more of the world interested in peace in Sudan. There was never a shortage of money for humanitarian relief there, but there was an ever-spreading crisis because of the war. The DEC appeal will be announced tomorrow, following the appeal already made by the Red Cross, which is working in Sudan. Under pressure from us, the DEC has changed its policy so that money from the appeal will go only to organisations already working in the Sudan. That is an improvement.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members and people who follow the media understand perfectly that she has made an excellent and comprehensive response? Does she agree that, as a Minister in the Cabinet who is working with her colleagues, particularly my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, she does not have much to learn from an Opposition who never included their Overseas Development Ministers in the Cabinet? We all recall that Tim Raison, in an open letter to his successor, Chris Patten, said that the only time he spoke to the then Prime Minister about his Department was on the day that he was sacked. May I thank my right hon. Friend, and encourage her to continue with her work and to ensure that the European Union treats the problems with the same urgency that she has shown?

Clare Short: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I want cross-party support in Britain for the Government's greatly enlarged commitment to international development. We need more united public support if we are to achieve real progress towards helping every country better to protect itself from disasters, to avoid loss of life on the current scale, and to meet international poverty eradication targets. I would even appreciate support from the hon. Member for South-West Devon, but I believe that he needs some briefing.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the Secretary of State share my sense of deja vu? I recall not only the Bangladesh disaster, but that this time last year we deplored delays and mistakes in sending aid to the island of Montserrat after the volcanic eruption there. I agree with the right hon. Lady that debt relief is essential in the medium term but of no use in the short term. However, will she explain why it has taken two weeks to send aid to central America? Will the review of her Department's disaster preparedness, which was promised after Montserrat, take place? Will she ensure that the aid going to central America is not just swift but appropriate?

Clare Short: I do not share the hon. Lady's sense of deja vu. In fact, the contrast between Bangladesh and

central America is very sharp. Half of Bangladesh was devastated. The loss of life was tiny, and the immediate recovery massive, because the people of Bangladesh have made arrangements to deal with such disasters. We cannot stop nature, except perhaps through environmental programmes, planting trees and so forth. However, we can be well prepared to prevent loss of life. In Belize, people were warned about the hurricane and were moved. Property was lost, but not people. Sadly, those arrangements are not in place in central America, and, after this disaster, we must ensure that they are.
Therefore, it is a case not of deja vu but of learning the lessons of progress. Our Government have been a leading force in the international effort to move rapidly everywhere—whether or not the cameras are there. Progress is being made, but we need more progress in central America. Montserrat is a different case. It was a complete mess under the previous Administration, and it is properly organised now.
It is not true to say that aid took two weeks to start. As the statement makes clear, HMS Sheffield was in the vicinity, but hon. Members must understand that, when mud slides down a hill, the international community is not there. Organisations have to be in the country to act quickly. That is why the Red Cross is undertaking an international training programme throughout the world—so that every country will have that sort of capacity.
We must go in quickly with food supplies and measures to bolster the health service and so forth. Through the World Health Organisation, we have been working with the Pan American Health Organisation so that we have the regional capacity to move quickly, and that organisation did move quickly—it was in before two weeks. Aid is not as good as it should be, but some of our efforts to strengthen capacity in the region came into effect because the Pan American Health Organisation was able to move quickly.

Ms Joan Walley: I warmly welcome all that my right hon. Friend is doing in her Department and with other Departments to deal speedily with the situation. Is there more scope for the Royal Air Force to assist in the immediate aftermath of the disaster? Also, when we are in a position to take stock of what needs to be done in future, will we consider the role of environmental degradation when deciding how to prevent such disasters in the first place? Can Government Departments also work together on that matter so that, as far as possible, we can try to prevent further disasters being caused by, for example, global warming and environmental degradation?

Clare Short: First, it is not sensible to ask military forces from all over the world to fly into a small country to deal with a crisis. It is sensible for them to do so if they are in the vicinity. We had three ships nearby which could move in quickly with helicopters when they were needed. It is unlikely that armed forces brought in from a long way away could do as well as existing local people, who know their country best, in rebuilding bridges and so forth.
I agree with my hon. Friend's second point. Today, I met my chief natural resources adviser, who arrived in Birmingham by train just as I was about to leave, and we had a similar conversation. We must consider such factors


more deeply. He told me that the disaster was partly due to the backwash of El Niño, but there is little doubt that deforestation has contributed. However, it is not a simple matter and I have arranged a meeting with our natural resource advisers after which we will make available the best advice. Obviously, if environmental factors are leading to the increase in the number of disasters, reconstruction must take that into account.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Surely the Secretary of State is right about the debt question, which could not have contributed given the emergency that the people of Nicaragua and Honduras were facing. Debt relief is a long-term process, although I hope that the right hon. Lady agrees that we need to speed up the processes of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative and ensure that it is more quickly available where it is required for redevelopment.
What is the position in Belize? I agree that it was more prepared because a new capital has been built, but what sort of condition is it in? Furthermore, does she agree that the United States has primary responsibility for the area? What efforts is that country making?

Clare Short: I agree about debt, and I know that members of the Select Committee on International Development understand the questions. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are trying to speed up the implementation of the HIPC initiative. We will need to press for similar flexibility for post-conflict countries, which would not normally have the track record to qualify for debt relief, and I think that we can achieve that.
I do not know much about Belize, because it has coped so well. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Caribbean is prone to disasters, but the area has enormous preparedness, with much good local organisation—for example, knowing where to put housing and with what materials to build—with the result that lives are rarely lost and the countries can quickly reconstruct. HMS Sheffield was there to help; that is why it was in the region. I understand that Belize, like Bangladesh, has coped very well.
The hon. Gentleman talked about US responsibility. I agree that we need an international system that can move everywhere. We should all be able to move in our regions because that is how we can move quickly. It is the American region that is involved, but we have our part to play. We have committed a £6 million development programme to Central America. The programme is not so much a bilateral programme with Britain as one that works with multilateral agencies to assist development. We are refocusing it to assist reconstruction. We will make our contribution, but the region should make the biggest one.

Mrs. Louise Ellman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Liverpool school of tropical medicine is already working to combat disease in Honduras and Nicaragua and received this morning a report directly from its associates in Honduras describing the devastation there and warning of fears of a cholera epidemic? Will she support all possible measures to enable the school to continue its excellent work in

combating disease in Honduras? Does she regard that as a contribution to its centenary celebrations, which are taking place this week?

Clare Short: My hon. Friend knows that I have visited the Liverpool school of tropical medicine. My chief health adviser, who was recently headhunted by the World Health Organisation to head its worldwide roll back malaria campaign—a tribute to Britain—came from the school. The Department works closely with the school and has enormous respect for its work, as do I. However, in the middle of a disaster, one does not get the best medical school in the world to rush into Honduras. We must strengthen local capacity. We have been working with the Pan American Health Organisation to get immediate support in. The school may be able to give long-term advice and help but the old system of flying in experts from all over the world was too slow and created chaos. We are building on regional structures to get the immediate response that is needed.

Mr. William Cash: The Secretary of State said that she thought that an all-party approach to such questions would be a good idea. Does she accept that there is an all-party committee on third-world debt, of which I happen to be chairman, with well over 150 members? Only recently, I tabled an early-day motion on third-world debt that 320 hon. Members, including many Labour Members, signed. I would not be surprised if she was one. Does the right hon. Lady agree that it is possible, and certainly not irrelevant, to adopt a twin-track approach? We need proper immediate relief to deal with this horrific tragedy but we also need to engage in a serious attempt to tackle world debt as it applies to countries concerned. Should she not consider whether there should be a moratorium on interest alone, which, for Honduras, would, I understand, amount to only £173 million, whereas a moratorium on the debt itself would involve about £564 million? Will she explain the position and take the necessary steps to deal with both debt relief and the immediate disasters? If she does not, she is liable to become irrelevant herself.

Clare Short: I thought that the hon. Gentleman's last remark was a bit silly, but I know that he takes a particular interest in east Africa, and I am aware of the work of the committee. I guess that so many hon. Members signed the early-day motion because there is so much public activity on debt. It is an example of democracy working: the public care about debt, so MPs start signing early-day motions.
I extend the offer of a seminar on debt to the all-party committee because the public campaigning means that many people think that debt relief is a magic bullet—that if we could only get debt written off, everything would be okay. That it is not true. It is no good pretending that there is a magic bullet. Debt relief is crucial to serious programmes for development and poverty eradication, but it cannot do everything on its own—it goes alongside other activities. I made it clear in my original answer that action on debt relief post-crisis needs to be taken to assist reconstruction. There is no doubt about that, and it is what the initiative undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and me is all about.
May I just point out that this is all media-driven, and driven by people who do not understand debt? The British people call for a moratorium on payments, but the


commitment of the IMF, the World bank and export credit departments across the world is needed, so it is not in our power to deliver such a moratorium. It is in our power to work with our partner countries and with the World Bank and the IMF and to use our influence to achieve the proper flexibility that Nicaragua now needs. Pre-crisis, Nicaragua would have qualified for, and Honduras would not have needed, debt relief. Now, sadly, Honduras almost certainly will need it, and we will work for that. However, it is not in the Government's power to call for a moratorium. There has to be international co-operation if we want to help those countries.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Labour Government in 1979 spent 0.52 per cent. of gross domestic product on aid and development, whereas the Conservatives halved that expenditure to less than 0.26 per cent. of GDP? Is it not welcome that the present Government are increasing our aid budget, thereby making more resources available for Central America and elsewhere? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many thousands of people working within the voluntary sector for non-governmental organisations, Churches and other bodies are delighted by her work to change the focus of aid and development, which contrasts with the Conservatives' hypocrisy?

Clare Short: As my hon. Friend and everybody else knows, the Tory Treasury team is calling for cuts in public expenditure, saying that we have dangerously increased public spending; yet each individual shadow Minister for a spending Department is calling for more spending. That is the Tories for you, Madam Speaker—not serious at all.
I am proud to be a member of a Government who have kept their word on increasing our commitment to development, strengthening my Department, and reversing the long decline in spending of the Conservative years. However, spend alone is not enough; what matters is how effectively the money is spent. We are driving the system, both in our own country and internationally, to turn to measuring outputs, such as reduction in poverty, children not dying and being educated, and the provision of health care. Only in that way will we achieve really efficient development.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Through the Select Committee, I have just had the opportunity of visiting the World bank and the IMF. The message that came out more clearly than any other was that countries whose Governments are pursuing the right policies and have the capacity to deliver make by far the best recipients of aid. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, while giving aid directly—and sensibly—to the NGOs working in the affected countries, she is making every effort to ensure that the Governments of those countries feel empowered by the policies pursued, not sidelined by direct intervention?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The evidence is now clear: even though the Governments concerned agree because they need the money, reform programmes imposed on reluctant Governments by donors, the IMF or the World bank tend to fail and slip. Only when the local Government want reform, and donors and the World bank get behind them, do we see real and measurable progress on development. We are reorienting

all our programmes to get behind Governments who are really serious about poverty eradication. Badly governed people need solidarity to build their civil society and we try to help, but that is not long-term development.
In central America—although, in the immediate crisis, reaching out to NGOs and anyone who is on the ground and can act to get food and health care through is the right thing to do in the short term—we have consulted the Governments of the region about how to work together on development. Now we have to focus on reconstruction, and, if we can get agreement on sensible strong programmes, we can get behind the Governments and get the World bank behind them as well. The sort of pessimistic talk that we have been hearing about 30 years being lost need not be true. If the Governments agree to strong and sensible programmes, we will back them. That is how to achieve considerable progress.

Mr. John Wilkinson: While expressing real appreciation for the expert efforts of Royal Navy personnel and British NGO personnel in particular, may I ask the Secretary of State to look to the longer term and talk to her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry so as to ensure that the British Government tries to persuade the European Union to adapt its trade policies—perhaps starting with the banana regime—to facilitate exports from central and Latin America to Europe, so that the countries can regenerate their economies more effectively?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that developing countries need trade opportunities, and we take that seriously. We worked hard during our EU presidency on the mandate for the renegotiation of the Lomé convention and to give good access to the European market not only to the least developed countries but to developing countries so that they can build up their economies through trade and exports. We are also working with the United Nations conference on trade and development to provide developing countries with training capacity on their trade rights so that they can exercise them. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that organising trade access and making sure that developing countries have the capacity to take up those opportunities is crucial to their sustained long-term development.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: The right hon. Lady said that HMS Sheffield was moored off Belize on what sounded like a DFID matter rather than an MOD matter, and I should be grateful if she clarified that.
More important, the right hon. Lady announced £486,000 of grants from her Department to NGOs. The Ministry of Defence will be faced with substantial expense in marginal costs from HMS Ocean and its associated fleet auxiliary, which has had to steam to the area. If those ships are to give effective aid, they must use their own supplies, aircraft fuel and spares. Will that be a charge to the MOD or to her Department, or does a mechanism exist to enable those MOD assets to be used as effectively as possible in the pursuit of development objectives?

Clare Short: As the hon. Gentleman knows, HMS Sheffield is the West Indies guard ship and was therefore in the vicinity. It moved to Belize immediately because that country was devastated in the way that I


described, although there was no loss of life. Later, when the crisis hit central America, HMS Sheffield had done its basic work in Belize and asked where else in the region it was needed. We asked locally, and the ship was wanted because it has helicopters, engineers and staff with medical skills that could be put to work immediately.
The other two ships were also, coincidentally, in the region, rather than having gone there specifically for the crisis. They offered their services and again we checked because it is no good if ships just turn up. We told the locals what was available and the ships were asked to come in since helicopters, in particular, are needed because all the bridges are broken.
I am pleased to say that the Ministry of Defence is bearing the costs. The additional cost to the Ministry is small because all the ships were already there, but it is not asking my Department to pay anything. That is important because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, military costs are high and, whenever we are offered military assistance, the costs tend to be prohibitive compared with other forms of assistance. We like collaborating with the MOD and are doing so more, but in this case it volunteered to provide the services without charge to my Department.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: On the deployment of HMS Ocean and RFA Sir Tristram, the right hon. Lady will be aware that after Hurricane Mitch struck, there were immediate pleas for manpower assistance. HMS Ocean was, as she said, in the area coincidentally. On board HMS Ocean, RFA Sir Tristram and associated ships are more than 1,000 men of 45 Commando Royal Marines who have amphibious capability—the capability to land quickly. When the right hon. Lady said that HMS Ocean would be involved in search and rescue exercises, she made no

mention of 45 Commando. What measures can 45 Commando take to assist and why were they not taken two weeks ago when that plea was first made?

Clare Short: Everyone always looks for a fault. The ships offered their services only in the past few days. We now have—I am proud to say, because Britain helped to build it—an international system that is capable of checking whether the resources on offer will be of any help. HMS Sheffield offered help first, and we immediately communicated that locally. The ship was wanted because the helicopters and engineering and medical skills would be enormously helpful. In addition, the crew had been doing similar work in Belize so they had great knowledge and skill.
The other two ships offered help later. The request then came to my Department and we communicated with the UN agencies locally. Helicopters in particular were wanted. I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about 45 Commando, but I can find out for him. I have checked and the two latest ships are providing reconnaissance and helicopters. I shall find out more details for the hon. Gentleman. What I have described is efficient operation rather than sending everything that moves into the area and causing chaos. The best way to deal with such crises is to provide systematic and co-ordinated assistance.

ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Competition Act 1998
Human Rights Act 1998

National Health Service (Winter Resources)

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): This time last year, the Government announced that we had been able to find an extra £300 million to help the national health service to cope with winter pressures. Staff and managers had worked up proposals for all sorts of local schemes to help avoid a winter crisis. The extra money made it possible for them to do what they had planned—and it was a brilliant success. Some £80 million went on the general practitioner drugs bill, but the rest financed almost 1,500 local schemes ranging from grants for extra meals on wheels in Nottinghamshire, to a special respiratory services team in Cheshire to prevent unnecessary admissions, to a joint health authority/local authority rapid response service for elderly people in Bury and Rochdale.
This year, the NHS, local social services departments and the voluntary sector are better prepared for effective joint working than ever before. As a result of conditions that I placed on the special transitional grant, councils are already investing more in order to help prevent people who do not need hospital care from being left in hospital, or people who do not need institutional social care from being placed in residential or nursing homes. This winter, for the first time, we are making flu vaccine available free to everyone over 75, as well as to the usual at-risk groups and key workers.
Last Tuesday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that we would find a further £250 million to help the national health service and social services to cope this coming winter. The English share of that total is £209 million, and I can announce today that the first £159 million will be allocated to health authorities in line with the general allocations to the NHS. The money can be spent only on special arrangements to deal with emergencies, on avoiding people becoming emergency cases in the first place and on enabling patients to get back to their own beds as soon as they can safely do so. The schemes will involve long-term arrangements to improve the speed and quality of treatment and care not just this winter, but for the future. This money will go on arrangements that must stand the test of time.
The remaining £50 million will be held back and used to deal with particular local difficulties and bottlenecks. The regional offices of the NHS and the social services inspectorate have already identified a number of places where there are hold-ups in providing safe discharges from acute hospital beds, particularly for frail elderly patients. The new money will be released to fund schemes that can demonstrate that the money will be well spent. It will not be used to bail out poor performance.
Last year, we had inherited the longest and fastest rising waiting lists in the history of the NHS; so, when we provided extra funds for last winter, I acknowledged that I was asking the national health service to concentrate on winter pressures and I took responsibility—personal responsibility—in advance if waiting lists continued to rise. Rise they did, but they are not rising any more. They fell in May, in June, July and August, and today I can announce to the House that, in September, waiting lists fell by another 29,000. That is the largest monthly fall yet recorded, and it means that hospital waiting lists have fallen by 99,000 since they reached their peak in April.
That is because, providing they have the necessary resources, the dedicated people who work in the health service can deliver the treatment and care that the people of our country want. That is what they showed last winter when they made such good use of the extra £300 million the Government provided, and that is what the million people working in the health service are doing now with the extra £500 million that the Government provided this year to bring down the waiting lists.
The extra £250 million for this winter and the extra £500 million for waiting lists was on top of the additional £1,200 million that the Chancellor had already provided for the NHS in his first Budget, so the extra investment that the Labour Government have put into the national health service this year amounts to almost £2,000 million—£2 billion—more than the Tory Government planned to spend.
And what good use the NHS is making of the extra funds. In the first six months of this year, it treated 195,000 more waiting list cases than in the first six months of last year. It also treated 52,000 more emergency cases. It has therefore treated almost a quarter of a million more people—waiting list cases and emergencies. Not only are waiting lists coming down, but waiting times are improving. Since June 1998, the number of people waiting more than a year has fallen by 9,000–13 per cent. Yet again, today's figures show that no one was waiting more than 18 months for treatment. During the same six-month period, the number of out-patients treated has also risen, by 67,000.
Unless the weather is exceptionally harsh, or there is a major 'flu epidemic, the NHS can face this winter with confidence. That is because the NHS is better organised than before, and now has extra funds for both waiting lists and emergencies. That is because the Government are keeping their promise to modernise and reform the NHS. That, in turn, is possible because of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's prudent control of public spending. That has made it possible to provide extra money for the NHS while keeping overall public spending within the limits that we promised and at the same time reducing Government borrowing from the profligate levels that we inherited from the previous Government.
Those careful policies will continue. That is why the Government have been able to find an extra £21 billion for investment in the NHS over the coming three years—the biggest boost that the health service has ever received. That is why today I can say to the NHS that the extra money available next year will include £320 million extra for waiting lists alone. This is no time for complacency.
That is how we keep our promise to bring waiting lists 100,000 below the level that we inherited. Just as important, we shall modernise the NHS by investing in new hospitals, new plant and equipment. We have started the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the health service. New hospitals are already being built for Gravesham and Dartford, Norfolk and Norwich, Carlisle, Calderdale, Durham, South Manchester, Sheffield, High Wycombe, Amersham, and Greenwich, and 21 more are planned. We owe it to the excellent staff of the health service to provide them with buildings, plant and equipment that match their excellence.
As part of the modernisation, which will improve the way in which the NHS deals with both emergency and waiting list cases, we are introducing NHS Direct,


a 24-hour nurse-led helpline, which will cover 20 million people by the end of next year. Next year, we are investing in the modernisation of as many as one quarter of all accident and emergency departments. The NHS is starting to make the change to booked admissions, which will allow people to make hospital appointments that suit them. We are starting to invest £1 billion in an information technology system, which will be good for patients and help staff do their jobs more quickly, better and more easily.
As the Prime Minister announced in October, we have decided that the national lottery new opportunities fund should contribute to our new drive against cancer, with tens of millions of pounds extra for new linear accelerators, breast screening equipment, scanners and hospices. Replacing old machines that break down with state-of-the-art equipment will be good for patients and staff, ending delays, cancellations, frustrations and uncertainties—better for dealing with waiting lists and emergency cases.
The extra £250 million investment for the winter, on top of the extra £1,700 million that we have already committed, should help the NHS ensure that it copes with emergencies and delivers on cutting waiting lists. I congratulate the staff on what they have achieved, and look forward to their making even better use of the extra funds this winter and in the next three years. That will be possible only because this Government give top priority to the health service, and stick to their promises.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: Although the Opposition welcome any measures to reduce the impact of the winter crisis, I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would provide clarification on a number of points.
Last year, an extra £300 million was put into the winter crisis. Can the Secretary of State explain his rationale in making less available this year, when we are unlikely to be so fortunate as to have so mild a winter for two years running?
Has the right hon. Gentleman made an assessment of the number of extra nurses that will be necessary, and can he say where they will come from?
What impact will attention to the winter crisis have on the waiting lists? As a result of action last year, the Secretary of State had to make a somewhat embarrassing apology for a sharp rise in the lists. He excused that on the grounds of attending to the winter crisis. Given that he is putting in less money this year, what is his assessment of the impact of any winter crisis on the lists?
In the context of the lists, and in order to enable the House to have the fullest possible picture of any such impact, when will the Secretary of State fulfil his promise to publish the waiting lists for the waiting lists? Will he assure the House that the falls in the lists that he is announcing represent patients actually treated? Will he confirm the Prime Minister's statement that patients are not being removed from waiting list statistics without receiving the treatment for which they were put on the lists? How would he or the Prime Minister explain the removal from the monthly returns of patients in Bradford, who were put on a supplementary list but had not yet been treated?
The right hon. Gentleman has made a virtue of announcing to the House today a fall in the waiting lists. Most of us will already have learnt about it from the morning media.
Will the money given to social services from the allocation be wholly additional to the rate support grant settlement, or will it result in adjustments?
Will the Secretary of State give the House a guarantee that no dogmatic barriers will be raised to the appropriate use of the private sector in relieving the winter crisis? Can he confirm that the private sector has already played a significant role in reducing the number of long-term waiters?
Are not the measures announced today a little late? Last year, preparations for coping with the winter crisis had already commenced by September.
In his statement, the Secretary of State made a recycled announcement that he had increased spending on the NHS by £21 billion. Does he agree that, calculated on that basis, he would have had to produce at least £19 billion just to keep pace with our average year-on-year real increases and with inflation, but that, from that extra money, he must do what we did not have to do: he must fund the minimum wage, the working time directive, measures to counteract the millennium bug, and the setting up of primary care groups? Will he confirm that, far from being unprecedented, as he implied, his increase in spending is less than our increases in spending between 1991 and 1994?
We notice the right hon. Gentleman's U-turn on lottery funding. Did not his party in opposition argue against the use of lottery money for expenditure traditionally funded from general taxation? He did not dissociate himself from that argument at the time, as I remember; presumably he is dissociating himself from it now.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that waiting lists are still higher than those that he inherited from us? How many of the hospitals that he proudly listed today are private finance initiative projects for which negotiations were well advanced under the previous Government? Finally, is he aware that, according to opinion poll after opinion poll, the general public are dissatisfied with the way in which this Government are delivering their promises on the NHS? After today's complacent recycling of old and manipulated statistics, is he surprised?

Mr. Dobson: No, I am not surprised at all about what the right hon. Lady has been saying. It is clear that she prepared her response before she had received a copy of my statement.

Miss Widdecombe: No. Most of it was done after we got it; it is the right hon. Gentleman's sums which are wrong.

Mr. Dobson: If that is the position, the right hon. Lady needs to improve her mental arithmetic. Last year we found £300 million, £80 million of which we acknowledged was going on the general practitioners' drugs bill. This year we are finding £250 million, none of which is going on the GPs' drugs bill. All of it is going on the identified schemes that I have talked about, so that is an increase. It is a decrease to the Tories, but it is an increase to everybody else.


What is the impact on waiting lists? I made it clear last year—I have never tried to shuffle out of responsibility for anything that I have done in my life—that there would be money available only to avoid a winter crisis, and that no extra money would be available to help reduce waiting lists, because the feckless ruinous Government who had preceded us had not provided that money. This year, we have provided £1.2 billion in the Budget, and an additional £500 million for waiting lists. We are now providing £250 million, which is earmarked for the winter. That is the best part of £2 billion more than the previous Government intended to spend.
The number of people who are being treated is increasing. I should point out to those who think that we are great statistical fiddlers like the Tory party that the new measure of the number of people treated in the health service counts fewer people than did its predecessor, because we are saying that we shall count people who have a spell in hospital. Under the previous system, with the previous Government, if somebody was seen by three different consultants in hospital, that counted as being treated three times. We have got away from that stupidity, as well.
The right hon. Lady raised the question of the ridiculous article in The Express on Sundaythe Sunday before last about Bradford. She seems to think that, if someone has a broken arm and has a metal plate or pin put into it, he or she should be regarded as having to wait 12 or 18 months for treatment before the doctor who has inserted it decides that it is safe to remove it. Such people have never been included in waiting lists. It is as daft as suggesting that a woman who discovers today that she is pregnant should be on a waiting list for nine months in the figures that the Tories have come up with.
Information in the news media this morning was published by the Government statistical service, because it has to take responsibility for the figures. Every penny of the money to which I have referred will be additional to the funds that social services departments have already received. As for the £21 billion, the average increase in spending on the national health service over the next three years will be at least 4.7 per cent. Under the Tories, it averaged 3.1 per cent., and only if they included the last year of the previous Labour Government.
We are having to put money into dealing with the millennium bug. It would not have been a bad idea if the Tories had noticed that the year 2000 was approaching before they left office in 1997. There are not many fixed points in this world but the onset of the year 2000 was fairly clearly predictable. Yes, we shall put lottery money into dealing with cancer. I am sure that most people prefer that to giving even more money to the Churchill family.
Yes, some of the hospital schemes are private finance initiatives. They are going ahead only because we sorted out the shambles that we inherited from the previous Government. Again, the feckless, ruin of a Government whom we succeeded left us in the position in which we needed to change the law to enable PFIs to go ahead, which was why even the Opposition nodded through the first Bill that passed through this Parliament.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: People who work in the health service will praise the provision of this extra £250 million. Will my right hon. Friend accept the good wishes of the chairman and chief executive of Nottingham

health authority, whom I met last Friday and who spoke warmly about the extra money for the winter and for waiting list reductions? When he allocates the extra £21 billion, will he ensure that health authorities such as Nottingham, that are presently underfunded against capitation, are set a target, so that there can be fairness across the country?

Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for his thanks. We are trying to establish an allocation system that is fair to everyone. Increasing resources by £21 billion makes it easier to be fair. In the first part of the allocation of the extra winter resources, Trent region will get more than £16 million. If it does as it did last year, I am sure that it will make very good use of those extra resources.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Liberal Democrats welcome any reduction in waiting times for treatment by the national health service, and any increase in resources given by the Government. I join the Secretary of State in paying the greatest tribute to those who work in the NHS. Since the Government came to office, has there been any increase in the number of people working for the health service? Have vacancies been filled? Have the people who have left come back? Are the numbers employed going up?
Why is it that, after seeing their doctor, people are being told—as in this letter from South Devon Healthcare to a woman awaiting treatment—that they cannot be put on the waiting list, and are being put on a pending list? They will not go on the waiting list until later, so they are not being counted in the figures for the time being.
When will we have the figures, as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) requested, for the waiting times between seeing the doctor and being treated by the specialist? I refer to the total waiting time, rather than the second half of the waiting time.
Is it the summit of the Government's ambition that, two years after they came to office, the waiting lists and waiting times are still the same as they were when they inherited them from the Tories, and that, at the end of the Parliament, there will be only one in 11 people fewer on the waiting list than there were at the beginning of their five-year term?

Mr. Dobson: That is not the summit of our ambition. The summit of our ambition is to have a national health service that does everything that the people of this country want it to do, and does it as cost-effectively as it does now. We want a health service that is much more proactive: we want it to identify each year the people who need a hip joint replacement, rather than insist, as it has for years, that they walk around limping, lame and in pain before anyone does anything about it. We want to modernise the NHS, and we must get rid of the waiting lists before we can do that. We want a national health service that has smart buildings and brilliant, up-to-date equipment, and matches the excellence of the staff.
As for the number of staff, there are more in some categories and fewer in others. I am sure that the balance will be away from people working in offices and towards people doing things directly for patients.


The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to a pending list. If he can identify where there is such a thing as a pending list, I will put a stop to it.

Mr. Hughes: rose—

Mr. Dobson: If he is saying that people must wait to attend out-patients, and that is what he calls a pending list, that list has been pending since before 1948.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: For 18 years, the Conservatives consistently sought not only to undermine and destroy the organisation of the national health service, but often to do so in the guise of efficiency? They made changes that were supposed to be for the benefit of patients. My right hon. Friend's announcement shows that he is the first Secretary of State who is really committed to the interests of the people of this country.
Will my right hon. Friend please take account of the fact that, although these initiatives are important, others need to be considered at the same time? Will he keep a close eye on the provision of nurses, so that district general hospitals such as the one in my constituency, that have been forced to close some wards owing to lack of adequate staff, will not face that problem in the coming winter?

Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for her compliments. Everyone likes compliments, and I hope that we will be able to conduct our side of running the health service in such a way that she will be able to congratulate us on being able to train and recruit the nurses we need. We have difficulties, and roughly 140,000 trained nurses—people who are qualified to nurse—are not in nursing. In case anyone on the Opposition Benches starts glorying in that, those people have not all gone out of the health service since we got into government. The vast bulk left over a long period.
Nursing has been made far less attractive. I believe that some aspects of Project 2000 turned away from nursing a group of young people who might otherwise have been attracted to it. I also believe that such things as getting rid of nurses' homes have been harmful to the recruitment and retention of nurses, especially in the big conurbations. Pay has certainly been a deterrent, and we hope that we can do something about that.

Mr. Christopher Chope: If everything is as rosy as the Secretary of State would like us to believe, will he guarantee that no patient in the NHS will suffer as a result of the millennium bug?

Mr. Dobson: Only an idiot would do that. Whatever else I am, I am not going to do that.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, over the past 18 months, it has been a pleasure to hear him deliver statements in the Chamber? We do not shiver and shudder, and think, "What the hell is he going to say?" Generally, he has come along to tell us that he is trying to repair the crisis in the national health service that the Labour Government inherited.
It is fanciful that, last week, those on the Tory Front Bench were saying that we are spending too much money. Of course, last week was all about the economy. This week, the Tory Front Bencher who was dancing on the stage at the Tory party conference tells my right hon. Friend that he is not spending enough money. We can manage without that kind of hypocrisy, and the hypocrisy of Liberal Democrat Members, who wanted to spend only an extra penny on the national health service.
May I make a suggestion to my right hon. Friend? He has already referred—

Dr. Evan Harris: What about the private finance initiative?

Mr. Skinner: That has upset him, hasn't it?
My right hon. Friend has said that he will have something decent to say about pay. Make no mistake this time: the nurses must get a better-than-the-cost-of-living increase, and it must be paid at one fell swoop.

Mr. Dobson: I listened carefully to my hon. Friend, and I thank him for his welcome for what I have been saying up to now. I hope that he will be able to welcome all future statements that I make, including ones about the pay of people in the national health service.
My hon. Friend is right. As I heard it, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said that she welcomed these measures. I am not sure whether she does or does not welcome spending £21 billion extra on the national health service; she seems to, but I do not know whether she has ever cleared that with the shadow Chancellor, whoever he may be at any particular time. As for the Liberal party, as I have said before, it is about the only party that has turned the words "I want to spend a penny" into a political slogan.

Mr. Edward Leigh: A recent study has shown that, as well as cutting waiting lists, a small hospital such as Gainsborough is capable of delivering minor surgery more cheaply than a district general hospital such as Lincoln. I would not expect the Secretary of State to comment on that instance, but will he articulate a general principle—which would be helpful in the Lincolnshire context, where minor surgery has been taken from smaller to larger hospitals—that he wants to encourage surgery to be kept close to the people?

Mr. Dobson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on trying to ensure that the service is nearest to the people who need it—but it must be top-quality and safe. From time to time, people who are better qualified than I to adjudicate on such matters will decide that a certain service needs to be of a particular size before it is completely safe and sound for local people. I have sympathy with the wish to retain as many local hospitals as can be reconciled with that requirement, especially as changes in information technology over the next few years will—probably—make it more possible to deliver top-quality services closer to people's homes.
At the moment, we face a dilemma: pressure—sometimes, there is a reasonable reason—to close a hospital or reduce its capacity. I want to avoid that as much as possible, so that, in five years' time, we do not find ourselves wishing that we had not taken such action.


Pressures remain; on occasion, major specialisations will have to be in major specialist centres—including cancer and cardiac treatment. Fairly recently, we introduced a large regional concentration of children's intensive care, because it makes sense to do so. Such concentration is better for the children who need such care than trying to spread it about, resulting in places without necessary expertise. In that, like everything else in this world, there are gains and losses. We live in a world of dilemmas.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: May I express my appreciation of my right hon. Friend's allocation of additional money, especially to social services? Social services in my area are some of the least financed under the standard spending assessment. The suggested increase will therefore be most welcome to Wakefield district council.
Will my right hon. Friend take note of consultation in Wakefield on the question of new hospital provision? Although my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has helped to try to explain the situation to people in Wakefield every time that we have requested him to do so, we must have assurances from the Secretary of State that the consultation will be meaningful, and that the result will benefit all people in the Wakefield health authority area. Any assistance that my right hon. Friend can give will be appreciated.

Mr. Dobson: The allocation that I have announced today will mean that the Northern and Yorkshire regions will get about £21 million extra for the winter. I hope that that will help my hon. Friend's area as well as any other. As he knows, I recently met people from the Wakefield area. I have said that I want Wakefield health authority to prepare a statement that spells out all the facts, check the impact of any such facts, and reach an agreed position with surrounding health authorities. Once I have such a statement, my hon. Friend and all others who represent Wakefield and the neighbouring areas that might be affected by what is proposed in Wakefield will be supplied with it. At the moment, the consultation does not seem to be carrying much conviction with many people in the area.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the sort of initiatives on the treatment of cancer that he has described would normally in the past have been paid for out of taxation?

Fiona Mactaggart: They would not have been paid for at all—that is the problem.

Mr. Dobson: Exactly; my hon. Friend gives a plain answer. We are finding an extra £21 billion over the next three years for the health service. Our ambitions to improve cancer identification, treatment and care run beyond even the £21 billion. We shall therefore be receiving money from the national lottery to augment the provision, and to provide what would otherwise have not been provided. If the Tories want to oppose that, and say that the priority should be to put money in the pockets of the Churchill family rather than towards treating cancer, it is entirely up to them.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that public opinion showed long ago that people

wanted resources from the lottery to be used to speed up research into cancer? Additional resources are needed in that area. The public want and fully support the idea. Will he also confirm that East Lancashire health authority, representatives of which he met on Friday, welcomes the fact that the Government are consistently making good news announcements on the health service, enabling it to plan ahead and not keep having to take steps backwards?

Mr. Dobson: I can certainly confirm that, although I should add that we are proposing that lottery funds go not just to cancer research but to cancer identification, cancer screening, cancer prevention and cancer treatment, and to people who are dying from cancer in hospices. We are spreading the funds more widely than some have previously suggested. We are announcing good news, but with the money East Lancashire health authority is providing not just good but better treatment and care. That is what people entered the health service to do, and that is why they are glad that we are facilitating it.

Mr. Robert Walter: My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) posed a long list of questions, one of which the Secretary of State failed to answer. What portion of the £159 million that will be made available immediately will be spent by social services departments? What conditions will be placed on that money? He has reassured the House that the money announced will have no effect on this year's revenue support grant. What deal has he done with the Treasury on offsetting it against next year's local government settlement?

Mr. Dobson: It will not affect next year's local government settlement, because it has to be spent this year. I do not know at this moment what proportion of the £209 million will ultimately be spent by social services departments, because we have not yet seen all the schemes that will be financed. The conditions will be quite straightforward: any of the money that is spent by local authorities will have to be addressed to provision such as that in, say, Bury and Rochdale, where an emergency services team, which is financed jointly by the health authority and local authorities, provides the elderly with immediate attention and help when they are telephoned by a GP, community services or a hospital.
There is no suggestion that any of last year's money, other than that spent on the GP drugs budget, was used for anything other than such purposes. The record of social services and the NHS making good use of the money last year reflected immense credit on all those concerned. The delivery that they made with that amount of money proved immeasurably useful to me in my discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister on the comprehensive spending review, money for waiting lists and extra money for the winter.

Mr. Andrew Reed: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement. From my rough calculations, it means an additional £4.5 million for Leicestershire health authority, which I am sure even the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) would graciously welcome.
My right hon. Friend referred in his statement to the allocation being in line with general allocations to the NHS. Does he recognise that Leicestershire is one of


the areas below its weighted capitation fee? It is also one of the most efficient and effective. Will he describe for my constituents in Loughborough and Leicestershire how the additional money will be allocated to make up the difference in weighted capitation, recognising the efficiency and effectiveness of delivery so far?

Mr. Dobson: The money for the winter will be allocated in line with this year's allocation priorities, so it is fairly easy for people to predict, if they know what percentage of the total they usually get. As I have said, the Trent region will receive a little more than £16 million to share among various authorities in the area. We shall very shortly be announcing the major part of the allocation of funds for next year out of the very large rise in spending on the NHS that has been agreed. I hope that my hon. Friend will be duly pleased with the money that flows into Leicestershire.

Dr. Harris: The extra money is welcome, but does the Secretary of State accept that it would have been more easily and efficiently spent and planned for had it been announced at the outset, rather than following a constant drip feed? After all—in relation to the Secretary of State's remarks to the Conservative spokesman, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), about the millennium problem—winter follows autumn as surely as the year 2000 will follow 1999. In Oxfordshire, it would have been easier not to make redundant social services staff, who can now be reappointed with the authority's share of the funding.
On the Secretary of State's desk lies a proposal from Oxfordshire health authority to close community hospitals in Oxfordshire, including Abingdon. I know that he cannot deal with that specific matter today, and I look forward to meeting him. However, does he accept that a useful way of spending the £50 million reserve would be to ensure that community hospital beds are kept open to avoid the bottlenecking and logjamming we see in acute hospitals, as efficient community hospitals with near 100 per cent. occupancy—such as in Oxfordshire—are threatened with closure?

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman understates the capacity of the national health service to do a good job. In his area—and with about similar notice last year as this year — the health authority opened new high-dependency units at a cost of £300,000, put in place community rehabilitation and care teams which reduced admissions and readmissions, and had a mental health intensive support team for people at home—all of which were funded out of the money that was announced in November. The authority managed to do that, and I am confident that it can do so again. The hon. Gentleman should not belittle the capacity of the NHS and local social services to respond promptly when money is made available.
As for the small hospitals in Oxfordshire, I cannot say today what my decision will be about the future of any or all of them. However, the money is intended to help with winter pressures. If a penny of it is spent on anything else, I will want to know the reason why—even in Oxfordshire.

Fiona Mactaggart: I know that the announcement will be very welcome in my constituency, where I recently had

a meeting with the management of Wexham park hospital. Those in management have shown themselves to be able to spend such money efficiently in the past, and they are looking forward to the refurbishment of the accident and emergency unit in the spring.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the Conservative party as feckless. The people of Slough feel very bitter that they face a series of cuts in public health services, health visitors and other provision, to pay off the debts run up by Berkshire health authority under the Conservatives, who consistently underfunded our region. We are grateful for the winter help money, but is there anything that my right hon. Friend can do to make sure that Berkshire health authority does not make the people of Slough suffer today for the bad management of yesterday?

Mr. Dobson: When the people of Berkshire and my hon. Friend hear our announcements for allocations for next year, I hope that they will not feel that they must run to make any precipitate decisions on immediate issues. It is worth repeating that the majority of health authorities and trusts—certainly the majority of health authorities—were deeply in debt when we took over from the previous Government: the famous people who claimed to be careful with public money. They were so careful that they were not even paying the NHS's bills.

Mr. Graham Brady: The Secretary of State has consistently avoided answering questions about ways in which the health service waiting list figures are being manipulated downwards. Perhaps I could bring him back to a specific issue. Is he aware of the widespread and increasing practice of pre-admitting patients, whereby, when the admission is entered on a computer—sometimes six weeks before treatment—the patient is removed from the waiting list? In many cases, treatment may not ultimately take place.

Mr. Dobson: That is not being done on any central instructions from me.

Miss Widdecombe: "It's not me, guv."

Mr. Dobson: No, it is not me, guv. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a useful point—and if he wants something done about the matter—he should send me details, and I will attend to it. However, if he is just getting up and blathering, like his Front-Bench colleagues, he will not get very far.

Ms Joan Walley: The people of the west midlands—and north Staffordshire in particular—will welcome the extra money to deal with winter pressures. However, may I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention an issue raised with him by Members of Parliament from north Staffordshire—our concern about the way in which the health authority is mothballing long-stay beds for the frail and elderly? We do need to modernise and change, but does he agree that we must look carefully at safeguarding those beds—at least in the short term—until alternatives are in place? Will he help us to ensure that we have the facilities we need, including long-stay beds, for the frail and elderly?

Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend, who was at the Labour party conference, will know that I was able to say at the


conference that we are having a thorough-going review of the availability of beds. It has long been the conventional wisdom in the NHS that the number of beds available has no impact on the provision of care. That always seemed to most people to be contrary to common sense.
When I observed that the NHS opened 700 to 800 extra beds to cope with last winter's pressures—and that it had stopped the closure of 1,000 intended bed closures and was reopening about 2,000 beds to help get waiting lists down—it seemed to me that practice within the NHS last winter was getting closer to confirming common sense than it was to confirming conventional wisdom. That is why I am having a thorough-going review, not just of the number, but of the sort, of beds. There is a relationship between acute beds, long-stay beds and mental health beds which we need to get right. In some parts of the country, it is clearly wrong at present.

Mr. John Bercow: Notwithstanding the Secretary of State's statement this afternoon, will he confirm that the number of people waiting for more than 12 months for treatment has more than doubled, from 31,000 to 63,000, since his Government took office?

Mr. Dobson: It certainly did, and it is coming down again—by 9,000 since June. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members want to answer the questions as well as ask them, I will let them get on with it.

Mr. John Wilkinson: The Secretary of State spoke of extra funding for special cases and emergencies, as well as for cancer treatment, through the lottery fund. Can I bring to his attention the fact that there are few emergencies more dire than severe burns cases, that the burns and plastics unit at Mount Vernon hospital in my constituency has treated recently some high-profile burns cases—brought in from Luton and Littlehampton in two instances—and that the unit works alongside and complements a cancer centre of international reputation?
Can the Secretary of State give my constituents—and those of other local members, such as his hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas)—an assurance that the excellent burns and plastics unit will be built up, rather than run down?

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman knows that that matter is out for consultation. I am not responsible for the proposals health authorities make—I am responsible only for the decisions I take if their proposals come to me. I will bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's point, because it must be said that I do not always agree with what the people proposing changes suggest.

Mr. Adrian Sanders: Will the Secretary of State look at the matter referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)? I have two constituents who have received letters from their health authority—from the secretaries of consultants—saying that they cannot yet be put on a waiting list, and have therefore been put on a pending list. That suggests to me that the demand for services clearly outstrips the ability of the health service to supply them. I hope that some of the extra money will be directed to tackling that problem.

Mr. Dobson: I am confident that the extra money for the winter and for tackling waiting lists will mean that the NHS can deal with substantially more patients this winter—from now to the end of the financial year—than it has been able to do in the past. If hon. Members have any information about pending lists, they should send it to me so that I can deal with it. I give them a hint: if they write to me as "Frank Dobson MP" at the House of Commons, the letter will not get lost in the machine. I receive about 50,000 letters a year, and I will give priority to letters from Members of Parliament.

Political Parties (Funding)

[Relevant documents: Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on the Funding of Political Parties in the United Kingdom.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I want first to put on record the Government's appreciation of the work of Lord Neill and his fellow members of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Their report on the funding of political parties in the United Kingdom is the fifth to be published by the committee and the first under Lord Neill's chairmanship. The committee has, as in its previous reports, shown considerable wisdom and balance in addressing the issues.
If the integrity of the democratic process is to be upheld, we must ensure that the whole system of party funding and election expenditure is open, transparent and fair. The committee has come forward with a report directed to that end. I am on record as saying that the Government strongly welcome the report; we are committed to legislating on its main findings as soon as possible.
It is worth recalling how we got to the position that we are in. It is no exaggeration to say that public confidence in party funding reached its lowest point in the years of the last Conservative Administration. The party of government raised millions upon millions of pounds every year, yet persistently refused to tell the public where it got it from.
The extent to which the Conservative party relied on the cash of foreign donors to outspend other political parties at elections is clear. Whether the money was a £1 million gift from a Hong Kong business man or £1.5 million from a Greek shipping magnate, the Conservative party's principal concern seemed to be the size of the cheque. The Asil Nadir scandal merely added to the unpleasant whiff that pervaded Conservative party funding.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: As the right hon. Gentleman is making partisan points—he said that the low point in party political funding was under the Conservative Government—will he accept that the low point in the conduct of referendums was under this Government, particularly in the referendum on Wales?

Mr. Straw: I do not accept that for a moment, but I shall be happy to discuss the conduct of referendums when we reach that point in the report.
In January 1995, I submitted the Labour party's evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which was then chaired by Lord Nolan. In that evidence, I argued for the Labour party that the committee should be allowed to look into party political funding and recommended a regulatory regime similar in detail to that recommended by Lord Neill last month. The Labour party's proposals included full disclosure of political parties' accounts;
proscriptions on overseas and large secret donations; limits on election spending at national as well as constituency level; new requirements for shareholder agreement … in respect of donations by companies".
The response of the Tory party and the Tory Government to the calls for an inquiry on party funding was to do nothing. Worse, the previous Conservative Administration deliberately blocked the Nolan committee even from considering party funding, the most crucial issue in ensuring high standards in public life. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), repeatedly refused, despite Lord Nolan's views, to refer the issue to him.
The response of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon to Labour calls was typified by his answer to my right hon. Friend who is now Prime Minister during Prime Minister's questions a year before the election. Asked whether the issue of party funding should be referred to the committee, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon replied:
No. I do not believe that that is the right way to proceed. Party funding has been investigated by the Home Affairs Select Committee".—[Official Report, 21 May 1996; Vol. 278, c. 95.]
Some hon. Members will remember that radical Home Affairs Committee report, which was published in March 1994. It recommended that the identity of large donors should remain private and that shareholders should not need to sanction company donations, and it supported foreign donations to political parties.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) will confirm, the Committee—unusually for a Select Committee—split precisely along party lines. As the minutes of proceeding show, it divided 5:5 and the Chairman had to use his casting vote. The minority report recommendation for a funding regime similar in scope to that recommended by Lord Neill's committee was rejected by Conservative members of the Committee using the Chairman's casting vote.

Mr. Chris Mullin: I vividly recall that, in 1993, when I first suggested an inquiry, Conservative members of the Committee fell over themselves to prevent one—they did everything they conceivably could to block it. It was only thanks to one renegade Conservative, who is no longer in the House, that we were permitted to consider the issue at all.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend has greater knowledge of the Select Committee's internal workings than I do, but his account of that pattern of behaviour is corroborated by some of the evidence that was given to the Committee by none other than the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), the shadow Home Secretary, who had then returned to high office as chairman of the Conservative party. On 16 June 1993, the Committee examined him on the Conservative party's memorandum of evidence.
Given the position that the Conservative party is now adopting, the right hon. Gentleman's evidence to the Committee is interesting. He said:
That individuals choose to give financial support to a political party is, in our view, entirely a matter of private choice. Donors assist the Conservative Party because of their support for its policies. We do not publish details or comments upon the names of donors. That is a matter for donors themselves.
That written evidence was repeated in answer after answer during the right hon. Gentleman's stonewalling performance.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I will give way in a second.


The most uncomfortable moment in what was obviously an uncomfortable session for the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was when he was asked about what had happened—or not happened—to Asil Nadir's £440,000 donation. He was reminded that the money had not been declared in the Polly Peck organisation's accounts. He said, and I quote from page 52:
Again, I should emphasise the point that the last contribution was made in March 1990"—
as though the effluxion of time had made receiving money from a north Cypriot crook all very well. He continued:
Clearly, that should have been declared. That is a matter for the company and its auditors.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield will now say why, as I understand it, the Conservative party has not given the money back to the shareholders. More years have gone past since he gave his evidence. Well before the Conservative party accepted the money, there was the clearest possible evidence that Polly Peck was, to say the least, a slightly dodgy organisation.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I will in a second, after I have given way to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins).
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was reminded of an article in the Daily Mail of 13 July 1981—well before the Conservative party started canvassing for money from Asil Nadir. The reporter went to Famagusta and wrote, of a Polly Peck operation:
I have never seen a store full of canned fruit guarded by men with machine guns before. I never got to see what was in the wooden crates. I glimpsed inside the warehouse.
Everyone had a fairly good idea about where Asil Nadir's money came from, yet the Conservative party took it, and has not replaced it.

Mr. Hawkins: Does not the Home Secretary feel a twinge of embarrassment about the extent of his humbug, when "the people"—as he and his Front-Bench colleagues say—will remember that he and the Prime Minister referred the issue to the committee to cover their embarrassment over the Ecclestone affair, and when we still know nothing about the blind trusts from which so many of his colleagues, including the Prime Minister and the Paymaster General, have benefited?

Mr. Straw: Even the chronology of events shows that not to be the case.
On blind trusts, it is important for the Conservative party to read its own evidence to the Neill committee. That evidence, quoted on page 240 of the report, says:
We believe that there is an argument in favour of a form of blind trust that should be examined by the Committee.
There is no point in Conservative Members complaining about blind trusts when their evidence to the committee shows that they support them.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The Home Secretary has been speaking for about 10 minutes; he spent one sentence saying that he accepted the committee's main recommendations, without saying which recommendations he did not accept. As the committee's new terms of

reference were issued on 12 November 1997, nearly a year ago, would it not be a courtesy to the House and to the committee to discuss the recommendations and consider how we can make progress?

Mr. Straw: Of course I will deal with that, but the background is important. Had the Conservative party not deliberately blocked the Nolan committee from considering the issue of party political funding, all the changes that we and the British public want could have been in place well before the general election and this debate would not have been necessary.
It is worth reminding the public and the House of the climate in which the Conservative party was operating. For my bedtime reading, I am fond of political biography and autobiography. I recommend Lord McAlpine's memoirs, appropriately entitled "Once a Jolly Bagman". On page 229, he gives the definitive statement on why the Conservative party always closed the shutters when it came to any scrutiny of its political accounts. He says:
Personally, I do not think that we ever should have shown how we spent our money. The Conservative Central Office is not a charity dedicated to helping the sick and suffering,"—
he can say that again—
it is a fighting machine dedicated to winning elections.
Well, it was. He said that it was
the height of folly to expose how such a machine manages its resources or, indeed, how large or small these resources are at any one time.
Lord McAlpine came up with a final solution to all the nonsense about scrutiny of the Conservative party's accounts. Lamenting the strain on the party's finances, he says:
There was a black hole in the Party's finances… The solution was easy: we gave up publishing accounts.
There we have it.
It is worth reminding the public about the serious concern that existed about the relationship between those who were funding the Conservative party and those who held power in it. Lord McAlpine was the party's treasurer. On page 264 of his memoirs, he says:
Senior officials in Central Office were in the pay of businessmen and promoting their interests, and I felt that the place was out of control… A warning was given to me about a particular businessman, and I passed the message on to two members of the Cabinet who were closely associated with him. Within hours, my words were repeated to this man.
That was the background that we had to face.

Mr. Martin Linton: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, at least as early as 1991, and quite possibly in 1990, the Department of Trade and Industry was investigating Polly Peck? We know from stubs found by the fraud squad that Asil Nadir was signing cheques to the Conservative party's account in Jersey as late as 1990. May there not have been some overlap between the incoming payments and the investigation?

Mr. Straw: I do not know the details as well as my hon. Friend does; no doubt he will make those points when he speaks.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Home Secretary has made an inauspicious start, in contrast with the way in which he handled the debate on electoral


change last week. He is being extremely partisan. There is a fundamental difference between contributions to the Conservative party and to the Labour party. The former did not buy a change in Government policy, but contributions to Labour by Bernie Ecclestone did.

Mr. Straw: There has in the past been a fundamental difference between donations to the two parties. The names of donors to the Labour party have been known, and not kept secret.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: The Home Secretary slipped away from the subject of the Select Committee report before I had a chance to catch his eye, and I want to take him back to it. One of the recommendations was that political parties should not take donations if there was any suggestion of buying policy favours. The Conservative party always accepted that recommendation, but the Labour party never did; we know that it sold policy to the trade unions, but did it do so to any other groups?

Mr. Straw: It is scarcely worth replying to that point. One cannot honestly look back at the history of the Conservative Government between 1979 and 1997 without noticing—to put it as delicately as I can—some coincidence between those whom we now know to have been large donors to the party, and some of the interests that seem, coincidentally, to have been favoured. I make no allegation, but I do not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman makes much reference to the Select Committee report, as it was a pretty disreputable period in the Conservative party's parliamentary history when it used its partisan power on that Committee to block the implementation of recommendations that it now says it will accept. That is why it is so important to put some of the history on the record.
In our manifesto, we promised to
oblige parties to declare the source of all donations above a minimum figure";
to ban foreign funding of political parties; and to ask the Committee on Standards in Public Life to
consider how the funding of political parties should be regulated and reformed.
The statement in November last year was by no means the first time that we had mentioned the matter.
We moved swiftly to fulfil the last of those commitments, and in November last year, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that the Committee's terms of reference would be extended to enable it to study issues relating to the funding of political parties.
Originally, we intended to legislate in the current Session to deliver the first two of the manifesto commitments—to ban foreign funding and to require disclosure of donations above a minimum threshold—but Lord Neill wrote to me in January asking the Government to defer legislation pending the conclusion of his committee's inquiry, because of concerns about the simultaneous consideration of the issues by both Parliament and the committee.
Lord Neill stressed that his committee was considering not whether the Government's commitments to ban foreign funding and to require disclosure of donations

should be fulfilled but how that could best be done. On behalf of the Government, I agreed to Lord Neill's request, while making it clear that we were determined to legislate on the issues.
All three major political parties, along with many others, made submissions to the committee. The Labour party has in fact long operated voluntary rules to disclose the names of donors who give more than £5,000 and to refuse funds from foreign sources. We argued, in our evidence for limits on spending at elections, for an electoral commission to oversee the regulation of party funding, and for rules to ensure that company donations are made only with the proper agreement of shareholders.
All those recommendations were accepted by Lord Neill and his colleagues. The Conservative party's evidence, by contrast, makes interesting reading. As Conservative Members have clearly not read the references to blind trusts, for example, I commend the evidence to them as an example of what happens when a party cannot make up its mind, as two bits of the party appear to have been involved in pasting that evidence together. We shall be told today that the Conservatives are committed to disclosure. I am glad to welcome any converts. However, their evidence, on page 239 of the report, says:
Although the Conservative Party is committed to disclosure, there is a case to be made against it and we hope that the Committee will give serious consideration to some of the drawbacks, in particular when considering calls for full disclosure of the names and donors and the amounts they give.
We believe that there is a perfectly honourable case to be made for anonymity.
A similar ambiguity is shown throughout their evidence.
Despite all that circumlocution, some parts of the evidence grudgingly repeat the pledge made by the Leader of the Opposition to disclose the names of major donors—a promise first made on 23 July last year. He said:
We must be open about our funding. In not being so in the past, we have often appeared secretive and defensive.… And so I will instruct our party treasurers that in future years we will list the major donors to the Conservative party alongside our published accounts. But I want to go further than that.… We will publish new guidance later this year, and our intention is that in future years the Conservative party will no longer accept foreign donations.
Given the history of Conservative party funding, those are brave words, but they are hollow. Despite all the bravado of fresh starts and new beginnings, 16 months have passed and my best information is that we have yet to see the list published by the Conservative party. If the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) wants to give us more information, I should be delighted to hear it.

Sir Norman Fowler: I shall readily do so. The names of donors will be in the annual accounts, which will be published in the next few weeks. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the financial year runs to April.

Mr. Straw: It is helpful to have that information. We look forward to receiving the accounts and the names of donors, which I assume will cover April 1997 to April 1998.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I am intrigued. I well remember that, when the Tory party was running the country, the country was £50 billion in debt and the party


was £19 million in debt. The Tories never managed to solve the problem of the nation's finances, but, miraculously, they solved the problem of the party's finances. They had one treasurer who could not run the country, but another who was scouring about for funds. When they publish their accounts, I want to know where the money came from to put the Tory party finances in the black. We need all the information, not just that for the past year.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right that we need all the information, but I fancy that he will be disappointed. He is also correct to point to the success of men such as Alistair McAlpine, who decided that one of the best ways of dealing with the problems and challenges of Conservative party finances was not to publish any accounts. Things have moved on a little, but not very far.
The report provides a good basis for legislation.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) has just given us an undertaking at the Dispatch Box that all donations to the Conservative party will be published. Is there not a danger that, unless that is carefully policed, there will be grouped donations to organisations that then become the registered donor to the party? Will my right hon. Friend press the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield for an assurance that that will not happen? Let us have the assurance in the House of Commons.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right to be sceptical about the extent of the information that we receive. When the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield gave his evidence in June 1993, he was asked about such river companies. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) asked about the innocent-sounding Northern Industrial Protection Association, which I thought was a private security company, but turned out to be a group of industrialists funding the Conservative party. Many similar organisations were listed. We accept recommendations 18 and 19 about the use of front organisations and the proposal for an electoral commission to police such matters.
The Neill committee has come up with 100 recommendations, centring on the full public disclosure of donations of more than £5,000 nationally and of more than £1,000 for constituencies, and on the banning of foreign funding, together with appropriate enforcement machinery. However, the report rightly does not stop there, but addresses wider issues, including the public funding of political parties, limits on campaign expenditure, tax relief for donations, company donations and the conduct of referendums.
The next step is to turn the report into legislation. We are setting about that straight away. It will not be possible to introduce and carry through a measure of such scope with due attention to getting the framework and the detail right in the next Session of Parliament, but we intend to produce a draft Bill before the next summer recess and to bring forward legislation so that new rules can be in place for the next general election. In the meantime, there is nothing to prevent the political parties from complying on a voluntary basis with those recommendations that can be complied with without legislation. My party has invited

the other parties to agree to a scheme under which the amounts of large donations and the names of donors could be made public immediately.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: If there will be no statutory means of policing election expenses by the time of the elections for the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, how will the issues be policed or regulated in the meantime?

Mr. Straw: I was coming to that. We are laying down provisions in the Scotland Bill, the Government of Wales Bill and the European Parliamentary Elections Bill for regulations that cap national spending. There will be other regulations on compliance. They will not be as satisfactory as they would have been had an electoral commission been in place, but they will be sufficient on an interim basis.

Mr. Peter Brooke: The Home Secretary said a moment ago that the Government would accept recommendations 18 and 19, but went on to say that the draft Bill would not be available until the summer. By the time he sits down this evening, will we know which recommendations the Government are not accepting?

Mr. Straw: I want to give an indication of that, although it will not be by numbers.
In his speech later this evening, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) will ask each of the main parties to nominate contacts for my officials to deal with on the detail and to take forward some of the specific recommendations.
It is important to look carefully at the enforcement machinery proposed to ensure that it will work in practice. Other countries' controls on donations and campaign expenditure have turned out to be wanting. We need a scheme that is practical to operate, but is also effective and commands public confidence.
I hope that the whole House shares the Neill committee's concern to avoid what it describes as the arms race in general election spending. Limits have been in place for a century or more on expenditure by individual candidates at a local level in parliamentary and other elections. They are fully accepted as part of our election landscape. They were imposed when there was virtually no national campaigning that was separate from local or constituency campaigning. The electoral law takes no account of the increasing national expenditure by political parties, which is separate from that at a constituency level. That is out of date and anomalous. We are committed to putting national limits on such spending.
Having accepted the need for national limits, the next question is where they should be set. There is no right answer to that question. The limits must be set at a level at which they will have an impact, but plainly, no purpose would be achieved if we set the limits at such a high level that they simply encouraged more spending.
For parliamentary general elections, the Neill committee has proposed £20 million. Lesser figures have been suggested—some more tentatively than others—for elections to the Scottish Parliament, the National


Assembly for Wales, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the European Parliament. Certainly, the figures proposed in each case are in the right bracket, and I understand that there is wide acceptance in Scotland and Wales of the proposed specific limits of £1.5 million and £600,000 respectively. We want to hear the views of the public and of political parties before we come to a final view, but we shall ensure that appropriate national limits are in place in time for the Scottish, Welsh and European elections next May and June.
On the form of enforcement machinery, we favour a regulatory body independent of Government and free from party political interference. The Neill committee follows in the footsteps of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, my party and many other organisations in recommending an election commission, and the need for a commission has also recently been endorsed by the Jenkins Commission. We believe that that case is made out, and legislation will provide for an election commission to be established.
Many overseas jurisdictions have an election commission in some form, but there are many models. We need to look closely at how wide the functions of a commission should go. I can tell the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) that we want as far as possible to ensure that there is a consensus between the parties, and that is the purpose of the discussions that are being established.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I welcome my right hon. Friend's acceptance of the valuable election commission, but can he say how the House of Commons, or a Committee of the House, will deal with the commission's expenditures?

Mr. Straw: My right hon. Friend will recall that the Neill committee proposed that the election commission should be established in a manner that would make it similar to the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. In other words, it should be a creature of the House of Commons, not of Ministers. There is every argument in favour of that proposal. It is important to establish the commission's independence of Government, and to ensure that it is properly funded. My right hon. Friend knows better than almost anyone that the NAO is funded from the Consolidated Fund, not from votes for individual Departments. That is an important way in which the NAO's position has been strengthened.
We must consider closely how wide the election commission's functions should go. At a minimum, it will need to ensure compliance with the rules on disclosure of donations, the prohibition on foreign funding and the limits on national campaign expenditure. The Neill committee suggests that it should also have general oversight of the conduct and administration of elections. A number of issues concerning the administration of elections are already being looked at by the electoral procedures working party under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. Some people argue that conferring such issues as voter registration. the franchise and electronic voting on any oversight body would divert it from its core regulatory functions, but my instinct is that those issues ought to be involved.
There is an argument that all electoral matters should be brought under the umbrella of an election commission. Under this scenario—lwhich is not advanced by the Neill committee—the parliamentary boundary commissions would be merged with the new body. The Neill committee did not favour that, but the Jenkins commission was of the view that an election commission should co-ordinate the work of the four boundary commissions. The matter clearly needs further reflection.
Another key area considered by the Neill committee was state funding. The committee came down squarely against a system of wholesale financial support to political parties from the public purse. I support that conclusion. It would be unhealthy for our democracy if established political parties were financed by a subvention from Government. Such easy money could soon result in parties losing touch with their members and supporters, to the detriment of the whole political process.
While I oppose blanket state funding, well established arrangements are in place for targeted financial support or benefits in kind—such as the free post—to assist candidates and parties at elections and Opposition parties in Parliament. Such targeted support is justified in the interests of a level playing field at elections and of ensuring that opposition parties can effectively perform their Parliamentary duties. The Neill Committee has recommended a number of extensions to targeted financial support. Specifically, it proposed: state funding to enable parties to meet the start-up costs of complying with the disclosure requirements for donations; a policy development fund of up to £ million; and tax relief on donations to political parties of up to £500.
In each case, the Committee has made a well argued case for such financial support, but, no matter how worthy such proposals may be, it falls to the Government and Parliament to consider them against spending priorities as a whole. There may be many people in the country and in the House who would rather see public money spent on further improving our schools and health service than on providing subsidies to political parties. We shall listen carefully to all the points made.

Sir Norman Fowler: We are talking about £2 million or £ million, not massive amounts. Surely the Government can make a better response than that.

Mr. Straw: I am glad to hear that the Conservatives so impartially support the idea of better funding for Opposition parties. I never noticed them do so when they were in government. There is a good case for better funding of Opposition parties, but if the right hon. Gentleman had listened a little more closely, he would know that I included in that bracket the suggestion of tax relief on donations. I have personal reservations about that, but it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Others may have their own reservations.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I must get on, or I shall take time from hon. Members on both sides who wish to speak.


Neill further recommends that the election commission should have a role in relation to referendums. The Committee says that, in any referendum campaign, there must be a fair opportunity for each side of the argument to be put to voters, and that the election commission should allocate core funding to the two sides. Linked with that recommendation is the recommendation that the Government of the day should, as a Government, remain neutral. So far as use of the Government machine is concerned, the Neill committee says, referendum campaigns should be treated as though they were general election campaigns. However, the committee also says clearly that it should be open to the Government of the day to state their view, and that it would be appropriate for members of the Government to campaign vigorously during referendums.
Those are important comments and recommendations, and they need careful attention in the context of future referendums. It is fair to say, with respect, that this is not the clearest section of the Neill committee's report, not least because of the opening chapter. I have taken some personal interest in this matter, not least because I was on the wrong side in the 1975 referendum—although some might say it was the right side in terms of the argument, but the wrong side in terms of the result.
On the one hand, the committee says, as does the Conservative party, that we should follow the rubric of the 1975 referendum campaign. On the other, however, it seems to imply that it is possible to re-create during a referendum campaign—which, by definition, will occur during the active life of a Government—the conditions that must apply at the end of a Government's term when there is a general election.

Mr. John MacGregor: I hope to comment further on this point later if I am called. I agree with the Home Secretary that there was some public misunderstanding of the recommendations on referendums, because of the way in which the summary recommendation was put. However, the key issue is that the committee said that core funding should be equal for both sides. Ministers will of course want to campaign, and in some cases—obviously so in the case of proportional representation—they will campaign on different sides of the argument. The committee said that there should not be core funding from the state for one side of the campaign, and Government funding for that side, too.

Mr. Straw: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point. Campaigning should be for political parties and other bodies. The permanent civil service should not be embroiled in the campaign: that would be quite wrong. However, in some circumstances, it may be appropriate—probably in advance of a referendum rather than at it—for the Government of the day to publish a White Paper stating their views. For some referendums—one on the single currency, for example—Ministers would have to continue to have access to official advice during the campaign. If there were turbulence in the markets, or some other serious question arose during the campaign which related to the conduct of monetary or economic policy, it would be wholly unrealistic to cut Ministers off from that advice.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I hope that my right hon. Friend remembers that, in the

1975 campaign, in effect, two sides were pushing the yes point of view and one was pushing the no point of view because the Government put out extra information and put an enormous amount of money into the campaign. By all means allow Ministers access to information, but the British people have the right to know that two totally different points of view are being put forward during a referendum campaign, and that does not consist of two thirds pushing one way and one third the other.

Mr. Straw: I accept my hon. Friend's last point, but we must accept the reality that a referendum campaign will be conducted during the active life and not at the end of a Government. During a campaign for a referendum on a single currency, the Government will still have continuing responsibility for the conduct of economic, fiscal and monetary policy; and if there were turbulence in the markets, Ministers would have to have access to official advice. We are talking not about spending money, but about having access to advice to which they would not have access during a general election campaign.

Mr. William Cash: The Home Secretary has made some interesting and useful comments on state funding, but, on the conduct of referendums, does he agree that many people believe that we have already embarked on a campaign on the euro and the single currency? It started recently. Indeed, the Prime Minister told me in an answer to a parliamentary question last week that the Government have spent £3.8 million on radio and television advertising on the euro. Significant sums have already been allocated or disbursed, and further information is to be made available to schools. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that is all part and parcel of the movement towards changing public opinion, which will be directly relevant to the referendum? Effectively, the campaign has already started.

Mr. Straw: I do not accept that. Whether we or the hon. Gentleman like it or not, the euro is to be a reality in 12 of the 15 European Union countries from the beginning of next year, and 60 per cent. of our trade is with Europe, so it would be wrong for the Government not to prepare business for the impact that the euro will inevitably have on British business whether we are members of the single currency or not.
I shall conclude, as many hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber want to speak. This brief run-through of the Neill committee report has brought me back to my starting point. The Government are committed to ensuring that our post-war tradition of high standards in politics is maintained and enhanced. The people of this country, who entrust to political parties the running of their local councils and national Government, have the right to expect elected politicians to act for the good of the community as a whole, not for sectional or personal interests that are able to curry favour by secretly peddling large financial donations. The integrity of the political system can be assured only if political parties are open and accountable, not only to their members, but to the country at large. The Neill committee report provides us with a framework for achieving that and I reiterate our strong welcome for the report. We will act quickly to implement its main findings and we will be open to comments and suggestions. We want fair and effective controls in place for the next general election. I commend both the report and the motion to the House.

Sir Norman Fowler: That was not one of the Home Secretary's most impressive speeches. Frankly, he was unconvincing on the referendum question and did not take the House with him in his other arguments. The right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) were right to say that the debate enabled an agreed future policy to be set down. For at least half his speech the Home Secretary was content to make party points about events, most of which took place a decade ago. He talked about political contributions, but the real scandal of such contributions, and the real issue, is whether they buy party policy, and that is institutional Labour policy.
The Home Secretary must remember the Bernie Ecclestone case, when the Government did a U-turn on cigarette advertising, and the fact that Tom Sawyer, when he was deputy general secretary of the National Union of Public Employees and was presented with the prospect of a reduction in union influence, said, "No say, no pay." Above all, the Home Secretary needs to remember the blind trusts set up by the Labour party—by those on the Front Bench—which were so objective and above suspicion that the Neill committee has declared them illegal. We will not take lessons from the Home Secretary or the Labour party.
Above all, I regret the failure of the Home Secretary to lead us forward in the debate. The Neill committee gives the House, politics and political parties an opportunity to move forward which should be taken. I congratulate the committee on its report, which is a comprehensive and fair assessment of all the major issues involved in funding. That does not mean to say, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that we won all our arguments. However, we accept the findings in the report and believe that legislation based on it should be introduced, with the proviso that it should implement all the major proposals. There should be no cherry picking of one proposal, leaving the others to one side. The Home Secretary's smokescreen on referendums was one of the least convincing parts of a pretty unconvincing performance.
By any analysis, the report comes at an important time. The country faces the prospect of new elections and voting systems—we will debate one system tomorrow evening. Also, and just as important, it faces the prospect of referendums on proportional representation—we look forward to the Home Secretary's contribution on that subject—and on the single currency, if and when, or when and if, the Government decide to put that issue to the public. By any standards, and irrespective of party division, those are fundamental issues which go to the heart of our democracy. Therefore, it is vital that the rules whereby such referendums are conducted are fair to both sides. It would be a travesty if the Government alone controlled the publicity and were the recipients of public money in such a campaign.
As the Neill committee makes clear, no Government can be truly objective in providing information for a referendum if they support one side of the argument. That was my view in the referendum on London local government. As it happens, we supported the idea of a mayor for London, but, when presented with the so-called objective advertising, there was no doubt that most people got the message that they should support the proposed change.
The referendum in Wales was even more questionable. During evidence to the Neill committee, there was widespread criticism of the literature distributed to every household in Wales, because it simply set out the Government's case for the Welsh Assembly. The Neill committee said:
We were disturbed, in particular, by the evidence we heard in Cardiff to the effect that the referendum campaign in Wales in 1997 was very one-sided, with the last-minute No organisation seriously under-funded and having to rely for financial support essentially on a single wealthy donor. The outcome of the Welsh referendum was extremely close, and a fairer campaign might well have resulted in a different outcome.
The committee was saying that a profound change had taken place in the structure of government, although serious questions remained about the fairness of the referendum that decided that structure. That should not be allowed to happen again. Both sides in a referendum should have the opportunity to put their case fairly and equally. We therefore support the Neill committee's recommendation on the need to provide both sides of an argument with a proper voice during a referendum.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Would it be helpful for the Minister who replies to the debate to say whether the Government agree with the Neill committee that what they did over the Welsh referendum was wrong? The Home Secretary did not have time, but will the Minister make a commitment that, if a referendum is held in this Parliament before the law is changed, the Government will abide by the recommendations of the Neill committee, even though they have not legislated for them?

Sir Norman Fowler: That is a matter for the Minister when he replies. We have not had too much specific guidance on the issue, so I am not optimistic, but I take my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Cash: I agree with what my right hon. Friend has said about referendums so far. In the light of the information that I gave about the Prime Minister's answer to me last week, does he agree that, given that the single currency and the euro are, by definition, some time off, it would be intolerable for what is in effect taxpayer's money to continue to be pumped into a Government propaganda exercise well in advance of the referendum? The rules should not be confined merely to the period of the referendum campaign itself, which, by definition will begin well in advance and, in my judgment, has begun already.

Sir Norman Fowler: I knew that the time would come when my hon. Friend and I agreed on Europe; that time appears to have come. I readily agree with what he said. If the Government can use money for propaganda on the euro, there is an unquestionable right for public money to go the other way. I say seriously to the Home Secretary that we will want to review matter this closely.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Does my right hon. Friend accept that he may have been a little hard on the Home Secretary? He will recall that the Home Secretary urged all the political parties to abide by the Neill committee's recommendations; even if the Government had not had time to bring forward the necessary legislation, we should all voluntarily bind ourselves to them. I find it hard to


believe that he would have urged us to do that if the Government had been planning to ignore the recommendations on referendums in this Parliament.

Sir Norman Fowler: My right hon. Friend is renowned as a very fair man. I agree with him. I hope that his interpretation of the Home Secretary's speech is correct. Doubtless the Minister who replies will be able to tell us where the Government stand on referendums, because the House is in some difficulty in understanding their position.
Referendums are a fundamental issue. If they are to become part of our way of political life—there are two coming up—it is right, proper and urgent that action should be taken. The legislation must cover that.
Equally, legislation must cover political funding. The most important part of the proposals of the Neill committee is the national limit on spending. I heard what the Home Secretary said on that; he is going to accept it. The Neill committee makes a powerful case. The table on page 43 makes one point clear. In cash and real terms, the spending of the two main parties at each election has been increasing. In 1997, the Conservative party spent about £28 million on the general election campaign and the Labour party around £26 million. For both parties, that was an increase of more than 100 per cent. since the 1992 general election. It also means that election spending, on the latest basis, is about equal for both major parties.
It is a fiction—I speak from personal experience—that the Conservative party has been consistently able to outspend Labour at every election. In the 1994 European elections, we had no billboard posters up. It is true that I launched and unveiled posters, including one that was intended—my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will be pleased about this—to show Britain as a European doormat. Regrettably, in its production, it came out not so much a doormat as a cowpat. Once the posters were launched and had done their ceremonial trip around Smith square, they were stripped off the vans ready for the next launch. Fortunately, Labour's posters—it had the money to put up posters—were so bad that they had no effect on the outcome.
I have some sympathy with the view of Peter Riddell, the political columnist of The Times, that the effect of campaign spending can be much exaggerated. As he says, Labour did not lose elections in the 1980s because it was outspent by the Conservatives. Equally, on the basis of our spending in 1997, we should have achieved a rather better result than we did.
My observations of the 1987 general election campaign support the Riddell theory. By every sensible indication, we were winning that election by a mile, but, following so-called wobbly Thursday, one or two people in the Conservative camp—not, I hasten to add, the then chairman—thought that we needed to do much more. The result was a splurge of national newspaper advertising, at vast expense. As the Home Secretary will recognise, I am the last person to argue against newspaper advertising, but in this case I am by no means convinced that it affected the outcome one jot.
Objective evidence of that sort is not the point. What matters is what party leaders and campaign managers feel. I suspect that the headquarters of all the major parties feel that they would prefer to have an overdraft than lose the election, so there is a temptation to spend and spend, and

the effect is an election spending arms race. I therefore agree with the Neill committee that it is in no one's interest that we continue to go down that road.

Mr. Phil Woolas: I notice that Lord Young has been mentioned. It is suggested that he was responsible for wasting about £5 million on advertisements, if I recall correctly. Lord Whitelaw said in his memoirs that it was a waste of money. However, such an amount would surely have had a bearing on the attitude of the editorial staff and proprietors of the newspapers in which it was spent. For the record, does the right hon. Gentleman agree?

Sir Norman Fowler: No, not really. I do not remember mentioning Lord Young's name. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's speech, if he is called.
There is also the issue of how we define a national campaign and over what period the rules should be in place. We would be wise to recognise that there are difficulties there. I think that the guidance given in paragraph 10.48 of the report is as good a way of defining national spending as any. It refers to expenditure
on account of or in respect of the conduct or management of the election.
Clearly, we will need to examine that definition in the Committee that considers any legislation that results. Equally clearly, it is important that the proposed election committee, which I again welcome, keeps the matter under close review. Nevertheless, in principle, I believe that the limit is sensible, as is the limit on third-party spending in a campaign—spending by an outside body that could influence the outcome of an election. I believe that the Home Secretary agrees with me on that point, but his speech did not make that clear.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Would the right hon. Gentleman include in that opprobrium spending by third parties such as the European Commission during referendums?

Sir Norman Fowler: Yes, I would. I was referring to national elections, but, by analogy, if that money were spent to influence a referendum in this country, there would have to be limits. There is no question about that.
On the question of third-party spending, I was not convinced by the arguments advanced by Mr. Dave Prentis, the deputy general secretary of Unison, that the sort of campaigning his union does during elections is politically neutral. In his evidence to the committee, he said:
The type of campaigning that we do is not primarily geared to supporting one political party. We are attempting to get the debate centre stage.
I find myself underwhelmed by that argument. I have taken part in eight elections and I am still awaiting that helpful Unison advertising, which I am sure is just around the corner.

Mr. Woolas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Norman Fowler: Is the hon. Gentleman intending to make a speech?

Mr. Woolas: I am attempting to clarify the Conservative party's policy, because the accusation that


has been made is serious. Unison's advertising campaigns promoting public service are paid for out of what is called the non-affiliated fund, and covered by the certification officer. Complaints were referred to that officer, and Unison was vindicated. May I infer from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that the Conservative party is opposed to promoting quality public services?

Sir Norman Fowler: That is one of the most pathetic interventions that I have heard for some time, but I shall answer it.
I thought that both Front-Bench teams, and even the hon. Gentleman, agreed that we needed to have some control and limits in respect of third-party spending. That is why we are telling the Home Secretary that we want all those points dealt with in the legislation. We do not want to have the sort of cherry picking for which the hon. Gentleman is arguing, because that would be against the public interest. Labour Members must decide on the overall approach to be taken. We have had an inquiry to which we have all given evidence. We have won some of our points and lost others. I suggest that the sensible thing to do is to accept what the Neill committee has said.
On the subject of spending limits, there is a proposal regarding the transparency of political contributions. Again, we accept the Neill committee's finding. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has already acted and, with effect from July last year, has undertaken to publish with the annual accounts the names of all donors giving more than £5,000 in any one financial year.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. David Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Norman Fowler: Let me continue for a minute.
It important to recognise that the argument on disclosure does not all go one way. That is not just what I believe; it is a point underlined by the Neill committee, which said that there was a risk that the arguments in favour of confidentiality
will be discounted in the public debate …Nevertheless … they deserve serious consideration.
I agree.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Paragraph 4.66 of the report makes it clear that, under the Neill proposals, there would be a requirement to identify the original donor of the money. Under its arrangements for disclosure for the current period, and before the introduction of legislation, will the Conservative party do precisely that, or, in the registration—and therefore disclosure—of registered names, will it simply identify individual organisations that make donations, or the individuals who make donations to those organisations?

Sir Norman Fowler: I believe that I am correct in saying that individual contributions will be identified, but I shall check, in time for the winding-up speeches, the position on contributions by organisations.

Mr. Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, to the last, the Conservative Government were so

strongly opposed to disclosure and why they made sure that the Nolan committee was excluded from looking into party financing? Will he tell us why the Conservatives in opposition have experienced a total, albeit welcome, change of mind?

Sir Norman Fowler: I did say reasonably clearly that there was a case for non-disclosure and confidentiality. We put that case, but it has not been accepted by the Neill committee. We accept the committee's decision.
The case for confidentiality was set out in great detail in the committee's report. I emphasise that it was not only the Conservative party that set forth the case; the committee itself took considerable care over it. There is no requirement to disclose publicly gifts made to charity or to voluntary organisations. One can imagine a business man in a heavily Labour area who would not want to disclose his contribution to the Conservative party, if he felt that he would be discriminated against, and that case could be made the other way around.
When I was chairman of the party, I encountered the exceptional case of a lady who in her will left a large amount of money in the form of a legacy, half of which was to go to charities nominated by the chairman, the other half going to the party. There was one condition: that she remain entirely anonymous. Her living relations, with whom I discussed the matter, agreed with her wishes. We respected her wishes, even though there was no question of her being able to benefit, or influence policy to her own benefit, as a result of the legacy. Those arguments were put to the committee, which rejected them, and we accept the committee's decision.
The most important point about political funding is this: a great deal of time is spent debating the issues surrounding funding, but the basic danger against which we must guard is that a contribution to a political party buys policy. That is the danger in a democracy, and it was that danger that was illustrated when the committee started its work by the case of Bernie Ecclestone.
A leading figure in the world of formula one racing, Mr. Ecclestone, it was disclosed, had given £1 million to the Labour party to help to finance its May 1997 general election campaign. The disclosure came shortly after Mr. Ecclestone had had a meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss the exemption of motor racing from the ban on tobacco advertising at sporting events—an exemption that was made. It is that sort of issue—contributions governing or influencing policy—that lies at the heart of the debate on political donations.

Mr. Mullin: Just for the historical record, had Mr. Ecclestone previously given any money to the Conservative party?

Sir Norman Fowler: I have no knowledge of that whatsoever.
The issues which I describe also surround the trade union funding of the Labour party. The entire and explicit purpose of that funding has been to influence policy, and we have to question that. Issues of transparency and influencing policy are also directly connected to


blind trusts, which the then Opposition Front-Bench team set up during the last Parliament. The Neill committee gives such blind trusts extremely short shrift, saying:
The Committee rejects the very concept of such blind trusts as being inconsistent with the principles of openness and accountability. Moreover, there must be considerable doubt whether they ensure anonymity.
The committee's proposal could not be more emphatic, stating:
Blind trusts should be prohibited as a mechanism for funding political parties, party leaders or their offices, Members of Parliament or parliamentary candidates.

Mr. Linton: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's assurance on blind trusts, but how does he square that with his party's proposal to the Neill committee for a political donations institute, which is intended to have exactly the same purpose as a blind trust—to accept anonymous donations and hand them on to the party concerned?

Sir Norman Fowler: As the hon. Gentleman knows, because he has read the report and the evidence, the institute, which did not exist when the then shadow Cabinet was accepting blind trusts, was proposed as a point for discussion. The Neill committee considered and rejected it, and it was entirely right to do so.
We support the other proposals in the report such as those for foreign donations and we accept the Neill committee's definition on that. We accept also the proposals concerning transparency and disclosure.
I have one caveat. The improper influence of policy is the acid test of all that is proposed. Transparency does not avoid the dangers of contributions influencing policy. There is no question but that it makes the process more open, but there is a need for us and any system to remain vigilant on that point.
In that context, we need to pay particular attention to what we do to help the development of policy, to which the Home Secretary referred. On page 93, there is a proposal to set up a small policy development fund of £2 million. That is a sensible measure. The amount of finance is limited, but it would substantially help Opposition parties—the Labour party could also benefit—and it should not be beyond the Government to accept that scale of spending.
The bigger issue is that of financing Opposition parties in Parliament. Again, we are not talking about big sums. The Conservative party receives £986,000 in Short money, which, because of the formula based on election results, is a reduction of £500,000 on what Labour received in opposition. Clearly the Labour party found £1.5 million inadequate, otherwise it would not have set up blind trusts in the first place.
I have a distinction in the Conservative party in that I am the only person to have been a member of Lady Thatcher's shadow Cabinet and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). The last time around, the present Home Secretary was a political adviser to the woman whom I was shadowing—Lady Castle—and even members of the Cabinet are beginning to look younger. In the intervening period, the conditions of opposition have not changed much. By any objective analysis, the resources devoted to supporting the Opposition parties are inadequate, as hon. Members on both sides of the House know.
We do not require vast sums, but it would be sensible to take this opportunity to make a new start in these procedures and provide for separate budgets for the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow team. In practical terms, that is light years away from general state funding of political parties, which I, like the Home Secretary, do not support. I support the voluntary financing of political parties because that voluntary commitment gives a party its strength. A strong party must therefore have a large, nationwide membership. I agree with the Neill committee that tax relief on relatively small donations would be a sensible way to widen membership, and I am disappointed that the Government are still sitting on the fence.
We congratulate the committee on its report. I emphasise that we would welcome legislation at the earliest opportunity, but we want legislation that covers all the report's proposals, for referendums as well as elections. There is an opportunity for all parties to proceed in agreement, and I hope that the Government will take it.

Shona McIsaac: Tonight we must face the fact that politicians are not held in high esteem by the majority of people in this country. In any straw poll in any town centre, people would say that Members of Parliament are here only to benefit themselves and are overpaid and probably lazy. They all think that we scurry off to jobs outside Parliament. They probably also reckon that we all take backhanders. I do not blame people one bit for thinking that—we are well paid; some Members do have jobs outside Parliament; and as for backhanders—the so-called sleaze issue—there have been many cases of cash for questions and associated problems.
I want to focus not only on who funds political parties, but on who funds Members of Parliament. If we are to clean up politics and if Members are to be held in high esteem by voters, we must have openness not only for party political funding, but for Members' outside interests and sponsorships.
The Tories must answer a host of questions about party funding, as was stated earlier. I heard what the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said about accepting the Neill committee proposals, but I want to ask many questions. First, Labour got into government because of what the Conservative party got up to, and we should not forget that. Aspersions have been cast on Members because of the Conservative party's history.
I recall the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) announcing that foreign funding of the Conservative party amounted to very little. I want to know exactly what is "very little". I heard the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield say that £2million is very little funding for Opposition parties. We still do not know precisely where the Conservatives got their money. The Leader of the Opposition promised to publish his party's list of donors 18 months ago. Where is it? Reading the evidence in the report, I have a sneaking suspicion about why there has been delay after delay in publishing the list. Lord Parkinson said in his evidence that an obligation to disclose all donations over £5,000 would lead to a reduction in the number of people giving money to the Conservative party. It wants to keep its donations secret.
I do not accept the argument that giving money to a political party is akin to giving money to a charity. Donating money to the RSPCA or the local dogs home to


look after furry animals is a world apart from donating money to a political party because one wants it to be in government. The Conservatives are delaying publishing their accounts because they do not want that source of funding to dry up, as Lord Parkinson said, or perhaps they do not want to disclose the names of donors because, as in the case of Asil Nadir, they are getting dodgy money from abroad.
I have a few more questions about Conservative party funding. I am partisan, because it was that party's actions that put Labour Members here. Has the Conservative party ever held overseas bank accounts, and if so, will it stop doing so, by accepting the report's recommendations? According to the treasurer of the Liberal party of Australia, the Tories have raised millions of pounds in Australia. Why do they not come clean about those foreign donations tonight?
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said that he wants to make progress and start afresh, so I suggest that he answers those questions in the Chamber. I want to know whether the Conservatives Abroad association comprises members who are not registered to vote in Britain. Is that another Conservative organisation that channels money into the party? Another big question is how the Tories turned a debt of £20 million into a surplus of £7.4 million, when allegedly all their big corporate donors had deserted them.
We have also heard much about blind trusts and the funding of the Opposition Front Bench. Let us examine the finances of the Leader of the Opposition. Has he revealed who funds his office? Why did he move out of the Parliament building and set up an office elsewhere? Why is that money not declared in the Register of Members' Interests? Those questions must be answered tonight if we are to have openness and total transparency.
I refer to another quote from Lord McAlpine's wonderful book. He said that Conservative central office was basically "out of control" and stated:
Junior officials in central office were in the pay of businessmen"—

Mr. Straw: Senior officials.

Shona McIsaac: I thank my right hon. Friend for that correction. Lord McAlpine said that senior officials were
in the pay of businessmen and promoting their interests".
We want to know who those businessmen are.
As I said earlier, it is about not only who funds the political parties, but who funds Members of Parliament. Yes, we have the Register of Members' Interests, but I believe—I am probably in the minority—that it is full of loopholes. There are many ways to get around the register. If we dip into it, we will see the list of Members of Parliament—they are largely Conservative Members—with directorships and sponsorships. Some of the specifics are disclosed and some are not. Members of Parliament are not required to make an exact disclosure of how much money they receive from jobs outside Parliament that they secured simply because they are Members of Parliament. We need to tighten up the register; if people are to trust us, we must discover who is funding Members of Parliament.
The Neill committee report should also be tighter. I note that the Government intend to accept the majority of its proposals, but I believe that the report's

recommendations on donations to political parties should be tighter. The provisions should be worded in such a way as not to give the Tories another little loophole through which to channel money here, there and everywhere. They have done that in the past, and they will do it again. The Tories will have to do so, because, as we know, their money is drying up and they need to find another way of breaking the rules. I ask my right hon. Friend to address the issue of who funds Members of Parliament and to consider incorporating that—

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Shona McIsaac: No, I will not; I am making only a short speech.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to examine who funds Members of Parliament and who funds the political parties. We must discover whether the House needs also to address the former issue. In the past, my right hon. Friend has considered making the corruption of Parliament a criminal offence. Councillors have much stricter registration rules than apply in this place. I should like the same strict standards to apply to us and to our interests, so that we may move forward to a different era in party political funding and the funding of Members of Parliament.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I broadly welcome the Neill committee's report, and take the view that, although it does not go as far as we have gone—and, indeed, as far as we recommended in our evidence to the committee—it represents a significant advance in the attempt to control the distortions produced by improper political funding and, perhaps even more important, to correct the public's perception that the political process was up for grabs. If that was the case—and I believe it was—it was due largely to the performance of the outgoing Conservative Administration.
To listen tonight to the speech by the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), was to experience some surprise—I put it no stronger than that. There has been something of a Damascene conversion on the Conservative Front Bench, and we have not been given any explanations for that quite remarkable change of mind. Most people who were concerned about Parliament's good name found it difficult to comprehend the previous Government's obstinacy in refusing to allow the committee—which they set up—to consider the funding of political parties.
There was some slight mitigation, in that the committee was established fairly close to the time of the general election. It might have been difficult to implement before that election measures designed to deal with problems that were manifest on all sides. Such a move might have been viewed as an attempt to close the door after the horse had bolted. However, the House is entitled to a more detailed explanation than was afforded by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield of how the Conservative party has come to stand on its head on this issue. His address to the Home Secretary—delivered in a somewhat holier-than-thou tone—about cherry picking seemed to me to be self-interest not very heavily disguised.
I am happy, on behalf of my party, to accept the report's broad—and most of its particular—conclusions. However, it is not, I believe, appropriate to refrain from


making positive suggestions in order to flesh out the report where it is incomplete. The report is not couched in the form of instructions to counsel. We should not be accused of cherry picking if we take the view that the committee has not argued its case as forcefully or as convincingly as it might.
At this stage, it is right to question the Government further about their intentions regarding the report's implementation. The Home Secretary said that we would not see in the next parliamentary Session legislation to give effect to what I believe is the core recommendation: the establishment of an electoral commission. That is understandable, but I regret that the Home Secretary did not lend any sense of urgency to backing that proposal. If a draft Bill were produced towards the end of the coming parliamentary Session, there might be further consideration of it during the following Session and no legislative action for some time. That would be highly undesirable. I profoundly hope that the Government will include such a proposal—I understand that they cannot announce tonight the contents of next year's Queen's Speech—in their legislative programme.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman is correct: we cannot announce tonight next year's, or even this year's, Queen's Speech. He understands the constraints on Ministers: we cannot say that a particular piece of legislation will be in the Government's legislative programme in a year or so. With that caveat, the Government are committed to legislating on the Neill committee report. We also want to ensure that we get it right, which is why we intend to publish a draft Bill. I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman and the other main parties' representatives will join the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), in the working party on that, so that we may get the detail right meanwhile.

Mr. Maclennan: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I shall be happy to participate in any constructive discussion. [Interruption.] As the Under-Secretary says, such discussions are already going on. Does the Home Secretary intend the work that is being done by the Under-Secretary to be subsumed by the electoral commission when that is up and running? What is being done at present has followed the pattern of previous Parliaments—a review of general electoral law, and tidying up. That will no longer be an appropriate matter to be led by a Minister in future, but should be led by the commission. No doubt that issue will emerge when these matters are further considered.
We urgently need to deal with these matters not so much because of the need to clean out the Augean stables, the legacy of the previous Conservative Government, as because of the need to deal with the public perceptions of, and immediate problems associated with, forthcoming elections and referendums. Since the most recent general election, our constitutional scene has changed dramatically. There is to be a series of elections—especially those that will take place in spring 1999—in which very many of the matters addressed by the Neill committee will arise.
It is important that we have a detailed expression from the Government of their intention to give effect to the recommendations where legislation is not necessary,

where that may be done in respect of the European elections, the elections to the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, and, although we have not yet had legislation for the government of London, in that election as well.
The committee proposed that Opposition parties in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, for example, should be entitled to some state funding—a sort of Short money. A clause to provide for help for Opposition parties had been added to the Scotland Bill, but the Bill that became the Government of Wales Act 1998 was too far down the track before the committee reported, so a question remains about the Government's intentions regarding the Welsh Assembly.
What plans have the Government to deal with the recommendation that tax relief be granted on donations to political parties? I listened to what the Home Secretary said on that. It is right for him to listen to Members' views, but a long delay is not necessary. A quick response is likely. The official Opposition have already made a positive response. I responded favourably to the report, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I hope that the Government will act in the next Finance Bill.
The Neill committee's arguments for its recommendations on referendums were less than totally compelling. I detect in the official Opposition even more nervousness about those recommendations than about some of the others. The committee obviously understood the issues, and its desire that there be a level playing field between the two sides of an argument in a referendum campaign was sensible and equitable. However, the committee took an artificial approach to the role of Government.
It is not easy to draw a line between facts and opinion, and if a referendum is to be conducted on a central issue of Government policy—the only occasion on which referendums are likely to be held, and on precedent many of them will focus on matters of constitutional change—it is ridiculous to suggest, or imply, that the Government should be hampered in making their case as the Government. Is the implication that a Government who go to the country to ask whether the country supports a Government policy must contract out the case to another body before it is possible to have a properly financed campaign? Such a set-up would be artificial in the extreme.

Mr. Swayne: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, during a general election campaign, Ministers are quite capable of going to the country to argue their case in a partisan way? Is it not too much to expect similar activity to take place in a referendum campaign while the neutrality of the Government machine is maintained, as it is in a general election campaign?

Mr. Maclennan: I do not believe that it is as straightforward as that. In general elections, Governments are judged not only on their record and their programme for future governing but as individuals. Voting preference at a general election is determined by a complex thought process. I believe that it is possible to draw a distinction between what happens in a referendum and what is done by Governments qua Governments as candidates for re-election during a general election campaign.


The general election rules have worked relatively well, although they were stretched by the previous Administration, which churned out highly expensive, illustrated official documents, which often had surprisingly little in them except propaganda. In that area—

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: No. I am finishing answering the question asked by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have done so, if he still wants to intervene.
In a referendum, on precedent, the matter being examined is a narrow choice, or a choice which—although its impact and effect may be very significant—may be considered discretely, without any reflection on the Government as a whole. Indeed, in the 1975 referendum on the European association, the Government as a whole had a position, but there were two positions taken by members of the Government.
In the holding of referendums, the prime duty is to ensure that both sides of the case are properly heard and argued, so undoubtedly funding should be made available to those who oppose the Government's proposition; but the suggestion that the Government's case should be contracted out to a campaigning body is an artificial approach, which I would not espouse.
I do not quarrel with the view that suitable restraints might be placed on Ministers participating in the formal campaign, but, as we have heard from the Conservative Benches, it is not the formal campaign that moves minds but the arguments that are going on all the time. The fact that a Minister who attends a meeting to advocate the Government's case is advised not to drive to it in his official car is neither here nor there. What gives the Government the great advantage is the fact that they have made a specific case continuously in the period prior to the formal referendum campaign.
I would have examined closely the arrangements made to furnish the no side of campaigns with suitable resources, and the propriety of certain meetings being handled differently from the way in which they are dealt with at general elections. We should not pretend that the balance of arguments is other than somewhat stacked behind the Government, by virtue of the fact that the Government's own policy is at issue. To try to muffle the issue and pretend that the Government could be neutral about their own policy—I believe that the word "neutral" appears in the report—would be wholly artificial.
I would give way to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) at this point—but it seems that he no longer wishes to intervene.
A further issue is the campaign period for referendums. The report suggests that the period should begin after Royal Assent. It is not entirely clear to me what the committee had in mind in that part of its report. If a referendum Act did not specify a date for a referendum—which is possible, as it might be left to subordinate legislation to do that—at what point would that requirement become operative? There are many such points of detail, which the committee understandably did

not think it right to consider. That will leave a good deal of work for Members of Parliament to give flesh to those bones.
I found the committee's report less than compelling in respect of party political broadcasts. It is curious that, although the report makes some suggestions about the role of the election commission in that connection—for example, the election commission might use its good offices between the broadcasters and the politicians—there is no formal recommendation about the role of the commission. Recommendation 95 exhorts broadcasters to
do all in their power to maintain … strict … neutrality",
but it does not recommend that the election commission should have a formal role in that regard.

Mr. MacGregor: The explanation is that, although the issue was raised with us during the evidence, we did not feel that we could make a recommendation on that point, because our remit was entirely to do with political funding.

Mr. Maclennan: That is a helpful explanation. It lends force to the view that we should not feel that we are departing from our proper response if we do not follow every dot and comma of the committee's recommendations. There is much to be said for giving the electoral commission greater powers over party political broadcasts than was directly advocated by the Neill committee.
For some time we have lived with an extraordinary arrangement, which has not worked as well as it might and which is rather fragile in its base. We have a shadowy committee of members of all the parties who are supposed to have a role in the matter, but at the last general election that role seemed almost to disappear. Now there is dialogue between individual political parties and the broadcasters. That has tilted the balance too far away from the necessary objectivity, and needs to be policed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): It might help the right hon. Gentleman to know that the issue has been raised with me elsewhere. It is our intention, through the electoral procedures working party, which I chair, to encourage the broadcasters to enter a dialogue with the political parties about how the new regulations might be made to work more effectively and, by implication, more fairly.

Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to the Minister. I am aware of his support for that view. However, we should not rely simply on the good behaviour of the broadcasters, as a matter of happenstance. We should consider whether the entire issue should be covered by regulation. I am increasingly of the view that that is necessary—the more so as the outlets for broadcasting expand and the opportunities for "narrowcasting" become clearer. The committee referred to that, without drawing any conclusions from that development.
My party was in favour of an element of state funding, so it will not surprise the House to learn that the arguments advanced by the Neill committee against state funding did not command our total support. It was never our view that that should be a substitute for the individual or other funding that has traditionally sustained our


democracy. We would consider it wrong to seek entirely to substitute state funding for that. However, democracy depends heavily on political parties for its effectiveness. There should be no political embarrassment in giving taxpayers' support to that process.
That philosophical point of view has to some extent been overtaken by events, at least temporarily. I take exception to the Aunt Sally raised by the Neill committee when it dismissed the idea that state funding should be established for the indefinite future. I do not believe that such a proposition was before it. A period of experimentation with state funding would have been worth-while, but I shall not flog that horse further.
On foreign funding, I broadly support the Committee's views. There have been spectacular occasions of unacceptable interventions from abroad in support of the outgoing Conservative party. I should have liked to press the committee—as the Home Secretary did, without any answer being vouchsafed—on the case of Polly Peck.

Mr. John Greenway: That is a past issue.

Mr. Maclennan: It is not just a past issue, but a continuing scandal. It is up to the Conservative party to rectify the matter as soon as possible.
There have been one or two glancing references to European organisations during the debate. It would be interesting to know what attitude the Government would take to them. Would such organisations be regarded as foreign—for example, for the purposes of election to the European Parliament? I believe that that would be drawing the net too tightly.
I take exception to the Neill committee's recommendation that donations to political parties should be received only from people who are eligible to vote in the United Kingdom. I do not know whether it was the committee's deliberate intention to rule out people under the age of 18 from participation in or membership of political parties. If that was the case, it seems to be a mistaken intention. I hope that the Government will look closely at that.
The main purpose of the Neill committee, which I wholly endorse, is much greater openness about donations. Save for what might be regarded as a Committee point, which is to express some doubt about the practicality of the proposal that donations of more than £5,000 should be reported to the election commission within seven days during an election period—that is the 12th recommendation—I find myself in broad agreement with everything that the committee has to say on donations. My party has as its target the disclosure of donations of more than £1,000, and, as most of our donations are less than £5,000, that is a considerable undertaking.
As for time, we have rules about reporting expenses during elections, and I think that they have worked reasonably well in terms of time. Returning officers have to receive reports from election agents in a given time. To avoid muddles, uncertainties and possibly substantial additional expenditure, which the committee recognised might be the consequence of its recommendation—and particularly because the committee proposes to invoke the criminal sanctions for a breach of this rule—I think that the time limit might be regarded as somewhat too tight.
It would be of interest as well to know whether the Government have it in mind to render void an election in which some criminal practice such as that to which I have alluded has been engaged in. It seems to me that that possibility would be at least as likely to have a deterrent effect as some ex post facto criminal sanction meted out to the malefactor.
I conclude by expressing my appreciation, and that of my party, to the Neill committee, which has worked quite fast to produce its 100 recommendations. I have no doubt that these recommendations need further refinement, or that they will receive careful attention and broad support from the majority of right hon. and hon. Members.

Mr. Martin Linton: I welcome the report of the Neill committee, and I welcome also the extraordinary volte face that we witnessed from the Opposition. I remember hearing the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) give evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs in 1993, when, needless to say, I was sitting on the press benches.
I had to pinch myself several times this evening during the right hon. Gentleman's contribution to reassure myself that it was the same right hon. Gentleman to whom I was listening. I look forward to hearing the speeches of his colleagues, the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), who is a member of the Neill committee, and, if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), who have, in common with the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench, been chairmen of the Conservative party. We look forward to seeing whether they are able to throw any light on the mysteries of Conservative party funding over the past few years.
I do not want to look back to the past; I want to address myself to the contents of the Neill committee's report. I start by saying that I think that the committee should be congratulated on facing the central issue in its terms of reference by recommending a limit on election expenditure. You may remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I was rash enough in my maiden speech to suggest—you were kind enough to rule me in order—that the huge sums that the parties received from undisclosed sources were like a cancer in our political system. I very much welcome the recommendation that the parties should be obliged to declare donations of more than £5,000. I welcome even more the fact that the committee has not fallen into the trap of believing that disclosure is enough. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said almost exactly the same thing: transparency does not avoid the danger.
The cancer that has invaded our body politic is not only that we have not known where the money is coming from, but that, increasingly, it has come from individual millionaires, with all the attendant dangers. I do not necessarily mean the dangers of corrupt deals behind closed doors; we do not know enough to say whether there have been any. I am talking about the danger that parties will feel beholden to their donors. They will be nervous of offending them, and anxious not to jeopardise their chances of another donation.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to my colleague from the Select Committee on Home Affairs for


giving way. We cannot continue to suggest that there may be something improper about the dealings of the Conservative party when we have direct evidence that the Labour party has done a complete stitch-up deal with a business man, and has been exposed to public view not by members of it, but by other means. Bernie Ecclestone gave the Labour party not £5,000, not £7,500 but £1 million, in exchange for which he got a change in policy. It is outrageous for the hon. Gentleman to suggest, with no evidence, that there is a mote in the eye of the Conservative party when there is a socking great beam in the eye of his own party.

Mr. Linton: I shall come on to the plentiful evidence about the corruption that may have occurred over the past few years. As for the Ecclestone affair, I shall say only that the Government behaved openly and honourably, naming the Labour party's donors and returning donations that could have influenced decisions. Even though the Government, with the best of intentions, declared the donations and returned the money, it is certainly true—I agree with the hon. Gentleman to this small extent—that the very act of accepting donations of such magnitude creates difficulties for any party and for any Government.
I was about to say that I believe that the committee has set too high a figure in suggesting that £20 million should be the expenditure limit for elections. We all know perfectly well that we cannot raise that sort of money from wine-and-cheese parties and bring-and-buy sales. When Lord Sawyer was giving evidence for the Labour party to the committee, he said:
To raise that kind of finance … we have had to seek donations up to £1 million, and we would need to continue that sort of fundraising programme in the absence of any substantial state aid.
We need a limit that removes the need for millionaire donations.
In its evidence, the Labour party suggested £15 million, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he believed that that figure was in the right bracket. I hope that my right hon. Friend tends towards the figure originally suggested by the Labour party, or even the figure that I would prefer of £10 million, which I think would avoid the need for the fund raising that we have heard about to be undertaken by any party in future.
We must remember that, in every election for the past 100 years, the Conservative party has outspent all other parties. That may not have helped them in 1997, but excluding coalitions, the Conservatives have been in power for 70 per cent. of the past century. However big or small we believe the role of money to be in elections—there is plenty of debate about the subject—I do not think anyone can seriously doubt the proposition that elections should be fought on a level playing field. Only one member of the committee disagreed with that view, just as only one member of it was a member of the previous Government. The report quoted him, and the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us whether the quote is fair. It is as follows:
He disputes the view that election expenditure is excessive, comparing what is spent in any one year on promoting washing powders, butter spreads and toilet rolls.
I refer, of course, to the right hon. Member for South Norfolk. I shall leave it to him to explain what on earth he meant. The right hon. Gentleman should explain why

he argued strongly against the extension of state funding, whereas he enthusiastically supports a trebling of Short money for Opposition parties now that he is in opposition for the first time in 18 years.
The introduction of tax relief for donors to political parties is bound to help people in higher rather than lower tax brackets. The Home Secretary says he has reservations about that. The purpose of preventing millionaire funding of political parties is to encourage a large number of small donations instead of a small number of large donations. I fully accept that the tax system can be used for that, but I urge my right hon. Friend to consider the use of tax credits, as in Canada, which give people the same rebate whatever their level of spending, unlike tax relief, which is tied to the rate of tax and depends on whether a person pays tax.
The report should have dealt with one or two other points of detail. Although the increase in Short money is welcome, the committee stopped short of recommending an extension of the provision to the governing party. That is illogical. Short money for Opposition parties is to be trebled, but the parliamentary Labour party has an important role to play in supporting members of the Government, who have their private offices, and the more than 300 Government Back-Bench Members. I do not see the logic of using Short money for Opposition parties only, given that the needs of the Government party are so much greater.

Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I was not a Minister in the previous Government, but, as a shadow spokesman, I have to rely on precisely the same office costs allowance that he receives as a Back Bencher.

Mr. George Howarth: As I did.

Mr. Greenway: As the Under-Secretary rightly points out, so did he. There is a world of difference between our duties as Back-Bench Members, including holding the Government and our own party to account over policy, and trying to hold the Government to account as an Opposition spokesman.

Mr. Linton: Of course there is, but Opposition Front-Bench Members receive almost £1 million of Short money. It is up to the hon. Gentleman to speak to his colleagues who are responsible for distributing that money to ensure that it is used for its intended purpose, which is to assist Front-Bench Members in research. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman: it is not enough. However, he and the committee should have the grace to recognise that there are other needs in Parliament apart from those of Opposition Front-Bench Members—but I do not want to dwell on that.
The committee turned its face against any limit on the size of donations. I fully recognise that it can be difficult to enforce a limit on donations: it is much easier to limit expenditure than to limit income. When the committee was given its brief, the Prime Minister said that he looked to the committee for its views on anything up to and including a complete cessation of business funding. I do not know whether that would be practical, but it is rather pusillanimous of the committee to rule out any limitations on donations. The problem that it is trying to address has been created by these huge, £1 million-plus donations.


I welcome the attention that the committee paid to the issue of shareholder ballots. The previous Government introduced one trade union Act after another to make it more difficult for trade unions, through their political levies, to affiliate to the Labour party, but they never applied the same standards to companies. I welcome the fact that the committee strongly recommends that companies and trade unions should be dealt with on an equal basis.
If a company wishes to give money to a political party, it should put the issue to its shareholders at least once every four years. Only if it has the support of its shareholders should it give their money to political parties. In the past, very few companies have done that. Marks and Spencer and Rank have held votes of their shareholders, which have always been in favour of political donations. Shareholders in Marks and Spencer voted by 50 million votes to 12 million: that decision puts the trade union block vote in the shade. The principle that shareholders should decide whether to give money to political parties is right.
It is a great shame that the committee stopped short of extending to shareholders the right that the previous Government rightly insisted should be given to trade unionists: to contract out of a levy that they did not agree with. It used the excuse of impracticality: it said that it would be impossible to exempt particular shareholders from paying a contribution to a political party. If it is so easy to ballot shareholders on political donations—it merely requires another question to be printed in the annual report, which is sent to every shareholder—it is not beyond human endeavour to find a way of enabling shareholders to contract out of a political levy.
I welcome the report's recommendation on state aid for political research, and I hope that it receives all-party support. It mentions £2 million, which is a fairly small amount, but it would make an enormous difference to the most important function of political parties—to work out the policies on which they would run the country if they were given the chance. Taxpayers will surely realise that this is a small investment in a worthwhile area.
In line with the Labour party's evidence, I think that the committee should have gone further. It should have allowed state funding to be used for political education within parties and for the training of election agents, councillors and party officials, such as treasurers. Political parties in this country are small voluntary bodies. They are fragile and underfunded, and they sorely lack the basic expertise required to take over the running of the country.
On party election broadcasts, the report goes so far, but not far enough; it recommends that they should be retained. I accept that not every television viewer immediately switches to a party election broadcast; nevertheless they are an important part of the communication between the parties and the voters, and they are a bulwark against the Americanisation of British politics. We all know about the amount of money that is spent in American politics on television and radio advertising. Even in the mid-term elections last week, huge amounts of money were spent by both parties. Those sums would dwarf the spending of our parties in elections. Rules on party election broadcasts must apply to all existing and future channels. I hope that that important guarantee will be written in at a later stage.
The committee is right to say that, although blind trusts were started with the best of intentions—to insulate Front Benchers from the pressures of donations—experience suggests that they cannot be guaranteed to succeed. The committee also turned down the Conservative party's suggestion of a political donations institute, which is quite right.
I was glad to see in the report a chapter that has not yet been mentioned—that on the honours system. The Conservative party often denies it, but the honours system has been a central part of fundraising, not only up to and including the days of Lloyd George, but, I regret to say, even since. If any Opposition Member is tempted to deny that, I simply point to the brutal figures: under the previous Government, 50 per cent. of honours for exports or industry were given to people who happened to have contributed to Conservative party funds, whereas the proportion of companies that gave money to the Conservative party was, at the most, 6 per cent.
I asked a statistician at the London school of economics to work out on a tri-squared table exactly what the chances were that it was a pure product of coincidence that 6 per cent. of the universe received 50 per cent. of the awards. He worked it out as a chance of one in 10 to the power of 133. I do not deny that it is possible that there is no causal connection whatever between honours and donations to the Conservative party, but the Conservatives would be asking us to believe in a rather long chance if they insisted on maintaining that.
The committee was right to include the honours system as part of a report that is basically about fundraising and to insist that the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee should be enlarged, broadened and given stronger powers so that the temptation to use the honours system as an implicit reward for fundraising—I do not say that open deals have been done, or that any agreement has been written on paper—would be countered.
The report contains the most extraordinary notion that money does not have any effect whatever on election results, which is an idea that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield described as the Riddell thesis, from the political correspondent of The Times. It was also defended in the committee by the right hon. Member for South Norfolk.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has been chairman of the Conservative party, as has the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. Why on earth did they spend money on advertising if they seriously expect us to believe that money does not have any effect on elections? Why did not they close down central office? Why does the advertising industry exist? How do newspapers exist, if advertising is completely ineffective? It is stretching belief beyond the point of endurance to suggest that advertising is effective for toilet paper or breakfast rolls, but somehow ineffective in politics.

Mr. Brooke: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the observation of the great man at Unilever who said that he knew that half his expenditure on advertising did not work, but he did not know which half?

Mr. Linton: Those are wise words. I would put the chances at even more remote than that. In political advertising, a designer could be asked to design 12 posters,


but only one would strike a chord, resonate with the public and win votes. Having the money to try out 12 posters to find out which one works makes a difference, not because each is successful or because all money spent on political advertising succeeds, but because every now and then—bingo, one hits the jackpot, as any treasurer of the Conservative party would concede.
Lord McAlpine, who has been much quoted in the debate, once told a former press colleague of mine, "If you've got £1 million or £2 million to spend on political advertising, forget it; if you've got £8 million, you can make people believe anything you want." Having the right amount of money to spend on political advertising is important.
I should elaborate on state funding. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary suggested that the report had come out squarely against state funding. That is not my reading of it; for one thing, state funding comes in many different forms—in kind, free mail, free lettings and free broadcasts. Such state funding is not only supported, but warmly encouraged, by the report, and there are many ways in which the committee wants to extend it.
The committee has great reluctance about state funding in cash, as probably almost all hon. Members have, but let us understand that the reason for that reluctance is not that there is something intrinsically bad about it. Every European country, apart from the United Kingdom, has state funding—there is nothing necessarily wrong or corrupt about it—but the history of party funding in this country in the past 10 or 20 years has been so dispiriting and so alarming, that it is understandable that people have turned against the idea of giving cash aid to the parties that have scraped the bottom of the barrel.
Ironically, lack of state funding was the reason why the parties scraped the bottom of the barrel. The fact that they scraped the bottom of the barrel in turn became the reason why the public would not countenance state aid, but, in time, people will realise that the price of getting rid of millionaire funding of our political parties will, in the end, be an increase in state funding—perhaps in kind, perhaps with strings or perhaps bit by bit; that is the direction in which this will lead.
The report said not that the committee was squarely against state funding, but that the arguments were finely balanced and that the time for it had not yet come. I would accept that: people are not ready for state funding, but we must accept in our hearts that, like every other country in Europe, we will sooner or later have to move further in that direction.
We should not miss the historical importance of the Neill report, simply because we have—I am glad to say—an unexpectedly wide consensus on it. The report will close a shameful chapter in the political life of this country. In a sense, I am sorry to have to become partisan, but the historical record and the historical reasons have to be spelled out: for the past 20 years, the Conservative party has relied heavily on donations from millionaires to finance its election campaigns. We are not able to say whether there has been any corruption only because we know so little about who gave the money, but there have been quite enough cases—I promised the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) that I would come to this—and quite enough ethical issues raised by donations that have become known.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned the £450,000 that the Conservative party accepted from Asil Nadir, only a year before he was being investigated by the Conservative Government for fraud. It accepted £1 million from Octav Botnar, shortly before he moved to Switzerland over a disagreement with the Inland Revenue about alleged underpayment of taxes of £57 million; and £5 million from Graham Kirkland, shortly before he became a knight in the birthday honours list.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is clearly suggesting that Sir Graham Kirkland, to correct his name, received a knighthood simply because he had given money to the Conservative party. The hon. Gentleman and Labour Members do not understand that people have been recognised through the honours system because of what they have done for this country and for employment. Unlike the Labour party, they have created jobs and prosperity, and it is entirely right that they should have been rewarded in that tangible way for so doing.

Mr. Linton: Far from it. I am not suggesting that Graham Kirkland corruptly gave money in exchange for, or in expectation of, an honour. I am saying that a system in which donors to the Conservative party are so quickly and so well rewarded is bound to encourage the provision of further funds. Indeed, who can completely exclude from his mind the possibility that that might be part of the intention?
We should also consider overseas fund raising and such people as Sir Y. K. Pao—he was a golfing partner of Sir Denis Thatcher, but I do not know whether that was his prize—and Li Ka-shing, who gave £1 million to the Conservative party and hosted dinners for the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) when he was Prime Minister. T. T. Tsui went to see the right hon. Gentleman in Downing street to discuss Hong Kong airport. C. K. Ma, whose father was—no doubt inconsiderately—imprisoned by the Taiwanese for heroin smuggling, seemed to believe, quite wrongly, that giving £1 million to the Conservative party would somehow buy his father the right to return to Hong Kong. A series of donations were clearly given in the expectation of favours. I am not suggesting that such favours were promised.
To discover where all this came from, we must look to 1976, when Lord Thorneycroft was chairman of the Conservative party and a new treasurer—Lord McAlpine, who has been quoted several times in this debate—was appointed. Having accepted Short money on behalf of the Conservative party in opposition, Lord McAlpine persuaded Lord Thorneycroft to refuse money that the Houghton committee, under the Labour Government, recommended should be given to all political parties. The Conservatives were the first party to accept Short money. Indeed, it paid for the researchers who developed what we now know as Thatcherism. The Houghton committee consequently became a dead letter, and Britain became the only country in western Europe that did not move to any system of state funding.
Refusing the Houghton committee' s recommendation was on the cynical calculation that, although the Conservative party was in debt, the Labour party would be worse off if state funding were not provided. Lord Thorneycroft complained; he believed that the Conservatives must accept the Houghton money because


the party was £1.9 million in debt. That seems chicken-feed in comparison with the Conservative party's subsequent £19 million debt.
The Conservatives maintained opposition to state funding of political parties so that the Houghton committee' s recommendation could never be implemented. Their calculation was right, in the sense that they always had more money than the Opposition parties, but in the end, as sources and the patience of industry in giving money waned, they had to scrape lower in the barrel, accepting overseas funding of all sorts. Such a financial strategy entirely merited—indeed, could have predicted—the election result.
Until 1997, the Labour party had no choice but to try to match Conservative spending. History will show that, as soon as this Government had the opportunity, they acted decisively to bring the arms race of escalating election spending to an end and to clean up the sleaze in our political system. If they do so with the Opposition's support, that can be described only as very welcome. Let us remember that the report is the result of a pledge that Labour made before the election. We said that we would clean up sleaze in the funding of political parties, and I do not think that anything will deflect the Government from doing so.
The parties are caught in a vice between falling incomes from their traditional sources—that applies to companies and to trade unions—rising costs of campaigning and the demand and need for more sophisticated policy research. There are only two possible consequences. We either have a slum democracy, in which parties are poorly staffed and researched and unprepared for the task of running government—contributing to expensive policy errors, such as the poll tax, which cost the country £1.5 billion—or a sleaze democracy, in which parties are forced into an unhealthy reliance on funding from private individuals, which will sooner or later compromise the parties' integrity. That is the lesson of the Ecclestone affair as much as it is of all the others that preceded it.
I very much welcome all the Neill report's proposals. Between them—disclosure of donations, a ban on overseas donations, a limit on election expenditure, ballots for companies that want to give money and tax treatment for donations—we should be able to put this sorry chapter of our history behind us for ever.

Mr. John MacGregor: It has been a great privilege to serve on the Neill committee and deal with the report under the wise and skilled chairmanship of Lord Neill. It has been a fascinating exercise.
From the very first evidence we took, which was from Peter Riddell, one of our most perceptive political columnists on this and many other issues—he covered much of the field—and from our visits abroad and the interviewing of witnesses around the country, it became clear that the question was much more complex than the simple thought of disclosure and banning of foreign donations would lead one to believe. We became increasingly aware that we were dealing not just with general elections but, due to the multiplication of the number of different types of electoral systems, the onset

of referendums and the technological developments we face, an on-going scene which covers a very broad field. I should like to make a few general points before I turn to our principal recommendations.
First—this is very important—the committee felt that there was very little evidence of abuse. In paragraph 4.4, we draw attention to
The two most obvious objects which are supposed by the cynical to underlie large political donations".
They are:
the purchase of access to Ministers (or Shadow Ministers) and the purchase of influence over policy.
It is worth getting paragraph 4.5 on the record:
In fact, the suspicions which are entertained concerning large givers are commonly lacking in any justification. We have been given no evidence that leads us to doubt that nearly all give generously either because they support the general aims of the party which they finance, or in order to minimise the risk of the opposing party attaining power.
That is a very important comment, because it reflects the real position of British politics.
I had a fairly extensive ministerial career in various Departments, and can firmly say that on no occasion did I take a decision on policy or anything else that was based on any donation to any political party. Indeed, I did not know who the donors were. That contrasts with the situation in the United States today, and in Canada before changes in disclosure and election rules. I do not believe that there is much corruption or abuse in that area in this country, but the perception that it exists is another matter. The perception, above all, had to be dealt with.
Secondly, I have always strongly believed that politics is an honourable profession. One of the problems with regular stories suggesting possible abuse, sleaze or corruption is that they give a totally false impression of the realities of politics—exaggerating the extent of such issues.
Exaggeration and concentration on such stories feed on themselves, creating a public mood.
I noticed in some of the debate and discussion in taking evidence the notion that there was somehow something tainted about being involved in politics—whether as a parliamentarian or as an active voluntary worker in the constituencies. I hope that our recommendations will eradicate that impression. They are based on the belief that politics is a wholly worthy activity, and one not to be looked at askance as though it was something shady.
I should like to put on record only two other passages of the report. In setting out the committee's approach at the beginning of the report, paragraph 2.11 says:
The pursuit of politics is an honourable profession to which many men and women devote their lives. Behind each career politician stands a regiment of dedicated voluntary party workers.
It is very important to state that at the outset. I am sure that hon. Members across the parties would agree.
Paragraph 2.23 states:
The argument here is that strong, healthy political parties are essential to the functioning of a strong, healthy democracy. In particular, strong and healthy parties are necessary as a means of recruiting ordinary citizens into decision-making positions at all levels of government, local as well as national, and also as a means of engaging very large numbers of people—as campaigners, activists, fund-raisers and participants in public debate—in the whole democratic process. Our view is that parties are indeed essential in this way.


That approach coloured our thinking towards producing a package.
I was very glad that the Home Secretary—I am sorry that he is not present, but I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) will pass on one or two of my remarks—expressed precisely those sentiments recently in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). I wholly agree with them.

Mr. Andrew Love: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but does he accept that successive scandals in this area over the past 19 years caused that malaise in the public's view of political parties?

Mr. MacGregor: I think that those matters have been greatly exaggerated. There are perfectly good explanations for the vast majority of donations, and I hope that the committee's recommendations, and the follow-up to them, will make that apparent.
There are two points that I wish to emphasise. First, there is nothing wrong with making financial donations as an individual or as a company. Indeed, I would argue that it is necessary. We do not want politics run on a shoestring, leading to poor decisions, poor government and the discouragement of good people from coming into politics. However, donations should be out of a conviction for a cause, and not to secure personal favours in return. Secondly, it is unhealthy to the political system for a party to rely on a few large donations from wealthy people, and it is desirable to widen and assist fund-raising by more ordinary citizens. It is in that context that the committee has made some recommendations.
I wish to refer to the principal recommendations, although I shall not dwell on them at length—they are clearly laid out in the report. The key passage is the chapter on disclosure. The disclosure of donations enables everybody to see what is going on, and I think that we have got the limits right. We argued for some time over the limits of £5,000 nationally and £1,000 at constituency level, but I believe that those figures are sensible.
One matter which has not been mentioned so far is that we have made an exception of small donations under £50—the endless local contributions from wine and cheese parties, coffee mornings and raffles. Some may argue that that gives a slight loophole, but I think that the loophole is tiny. One would have to go to a lot of wine and cheese parties and raffles and make a lot of small donations to get close to the figure that we are talking about. The importance of excluding such events is twofold. First, we do not want to discourage those activities which widen the network of people who are involved in politics.
Secondly, the administrative task of scrutinising and keeping records of all those small donations would be impossible.
We had a long discussion on the effect of disclosure in terms of political parties being able to raise funds. There is no clear answer. Some of the evidence from overseas suggested that, once disclosure of donations is introduced, there will be a considerable reduction in the amount of money going into the political parties. I would guess that

that will happen, because some people, for perfectly honourable reasons, will be deterred from giving—when they might have given, for honourable reasons, otherwise—because they just do not want public disclosure of the fact that they are contributing to a political party.
There will be a reduction—it could be considerable—in the money going into political parties from the more wealthy donors or companies, and it is important to take that into account when we look at some of the committee's later recommendations.
As for foreign donations, we had to wrestle to work out the best definition of a "foreign donation". I personally think that we got it right, in terms of both individuals and companies. Some organisations—for example, big international lobbying organisations—may bring considerable sums of money into a political party which supports, say, an issue on animal welfare. We have put restrictions on those organisations also, because it is not just companies we need to be concerned about. I hope that we have the definition right, but it took a good deal of working out.
There is an exception for Northern Ireland in relation to disclosure of donations and foreign donations. In terms of foreign donations, the exception was made because of the Ireland Act 1949 and the Irish Republic's Electoral Act 1997. I should like to see no exceptions to the general rules in relation to disclosure or foreign donations. However, we took the view that, on security grounds—at least in the short to mid-term as far as disclosure was concerned—and on the technical grounds that I have described for foreign donations, there had to be an exception. Everyone on the committee felt that, as soon as the Government felt that the exception could be dropped on both scores the better, because it was much better to have no exceptions.
There was an argument that any exceptions in Northern Ireland for foreign donations should apply in Scotland as well. I cannot see why, as what applies in the rest of the United Kingdom should apply in Scotland as well. However, it leads to the point that there have to be good reasons for an exception in terms of foreign donations and disclosure, and we accepted that the case in Northern Ireland applied in both respects.
The committee felt from the outset that, as we moved into a more complex area, the arguments for an electoral commission were overwhelming. We could be dealing with a scene that changes much faster than in the past, and technological developments will be very important in the context of the ceilings on expenditure—about which I shall say more later. Because of the proliferation of various types of election, the issues could change. We felt that the electoral commission should have the remit not only to control how the legislation was applied in practice, but to keep reviewing whether changes were necessary in the light of the kind of developments to which I have referred.
I wish to refer now to tax relief. There is a clear recommendation in the report—which I wholly support—that the Government should look at the recommendations as a package and as a whole. There must be no cherry-picking, because the temptation may be to pick the cherry that one likes, while leaving some of the others aside. We see the process as a unity of approach. If we are to curb—as, inevitably, we will—the amount of


donations as a result of disclosure, and if we believe that an absolutely critical point of our whole approach was to encourage many more ordinary citizens to become involved in the political process and to give donations, tax relief is an important recommendation.
I would very much regret it if the Government decided that they were unable to embark on the tax relief change, because I believe that giving tax relief on donations to political parties—which are, after all, about the future of us all—is just as important and worth while as giving it on donations to charities.
Some have argued that the tax relief proposal will favour one political party over another. I do not think it will, because we have put strict limits on our recommendations on tax relief—a limit of £500, with relief limited to the basic rate. That will not help higher-rate taxpayers more than ordinary taxpayers. In addition, the argument that some people do not pay tax is not a reason for not embarking on the scheme.
I must tell the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) that we looked at tax credits as an alternative. However, the difficulty was that, in the British tax system—the evidence from the Inland Revenue was clear—tax credits would be difficult and expensive to operate, whereas the tax relief system, based on charitable donations and so on, would be much easier.
In fact, the tax relief system is much easier to operate for political parties than it is for charities. There are a multiplicity of charities which must correspond with the Inland Revenue, it being the responsibility of the charity to apply for tax relief. However, in terms of political parties, there will only be two or three mediums through which tax relief will be provided. That is why we chose that route.

Mr. Maclennan: I am interested in what the right hon. Gentleman said about taking the recommendations as a package. Did he and the committee consider the recommendation on the Short money and the aid given to parties in Parliament to be part of that package, as there has been some argument that that system favours one party over another?

Mr. MacGregor: The right hon. Gentleman has read my mind, as I was about to speak about Short money, which the committee regarded as very much part of the package.
I served on the Standards and Privileges Committee for a few months before the general election. I felt that blind trusts were a way to get around disclosure—if the Committee had been able to finish its work, I would have strongly objected to them. However, I understood the arguments for them—Opposition Front Benchers need more funding to carry out their activities. I have thought for a long time—I believed it when we were in government—that the Short money is inadequate. The demands on Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen in keeping themselves well informed are substantial.

Mr. Linton: The right hon. Gentleman has been, among others things, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House. Why, if he held those views, did he not introduce reforms to increase Short money then?

Mr. MacGregor: I was not under any pressure to do so. Now that the matter has come up, I am happy to make

my views known. The issue was graphically brought to light when my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) went, as shadow Secretary of State for Defence, on a crucial fact-finding mission to Bosnia. He was fortunate enough to have had a lift out in a Royal Air Force plane, but the plane would not bring him back, and the Short money did not extend to paying his fare. Indeed, I am not sure how he managed to return—

Mr. Gerald Howarth: By bicycle.

Mr. MacGregor: Perhaps by bicycle.
An Opposition spokesman carrying out a perfectly legitimate, and highly desirable, activity as part of his responsibility should not have to fund his trip from his private resources or from 10p or 20p donations at coffee mornings. Since Short money was introduced, political life has become much more complex, and the demands on Front-Bench spokesman have become much greater.
I hope that the Government accept the committee's recommendation to treble Short money. The committee also made detailed points about the money's distribution, but I shall not describe them now.
One of the justifications for trebling Short money is the amount that taxpayers now spend on special advisers. This year, £3.6 million, I think, is being spent on special advisers—the Government have taken on many more than we had. Those of us who have had special advisers—including, I am sure, the Home Secretary—know that a good deal of their work is political. In comparison with the £3.6 million that is spent on Government special advisers—on top of all the other resources for the Government machine and the civil service—the trebling of the Short money would be a small sum.
The hon. Member for Battersea asked why Short money should not be given to Back Benchers from the governing party. Short money is specifically for Front-Bench activity; it is not for Opposition Back Benchers, so the committee did not believe that there was a case for extending it to Back Benchers from the governing party.
Having disagreed with the hon. Member for Battersea twice, I should add that I entirely agree with his arguments for some modest funding for political research. One of the weakest parts of the Home Secretary's speech—with the exception of all the tendentious stuff at the beginning—was the way in which he compared political research funding with the money that is spent on education and schools. That was rather cheap, and it missed the point. Short money and political research funding are important to the proper working of government and to the development of policy by any future Government. It is wrong that Opposition policy development should depend on 20p contributions at coffee mornings—proper funding would be a well-directed use of taxpayers' money.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman's admonition on my speech was fair. My mistake was to wrap up comments about Short money with comments about tax relief, which are separate issues. We have some serious considerations to make before we allow donations to


political parties for policy development. I accept what he says about Short money, however, having had to put up with its shortage in opposition.

Mr. MacGregor: The right hon. Gentleman should read what I said about tax relief, which I believe should be part of the package.
It became apparent to the committee that referendums were a key issue. I am trying to avoid being politically contentious, as that was not the committee's approach, but the evidence we received in Cardiff led me to believe that the operation of the referendum on the Welsh Assembly was outrageous. There would not have been a no campaign if it were not for the fact that a member of the Labour party had been sufficiently worried about the establishment of the Assembly to ask her bank manager for a £4,000 overdraft to start up the campaign—her courage led Robert Hodge to donate £80,000. Despite the shortage of funds, the campaign came close to being successful. We should not conduct major constitutional referendums in such a way.
The committee's recommendations on referendums are extremely important, and I hope that the Government will take them up. There are arguments for extending the remit of the electoral commission—or some other body—beyond the scrutiny of political funding in referendums, but it was not the task of the Neill committee to consider them.
Another point should be clarified. There has been some misunderstanding about what the committee meant in saying that the Government should be neutral in referendums—perhaps the point was not drafted sufficiently clearly. Of course the Government should not be prevented from expressing their views vociferously. In any referendum on proportional representation, the Government will, presumably, speak with two voices—

Mr. Straw: One.

Mr. MacGregor: I am very glad to hear it, if that voice is going to be the Home Secretary's. However, the right hon. Gentleman must concede the possibility that there will be two voices. If there are, Ministers will express their personal views, and will not expect the Government machine to back them with expenditure. The committee argued for core funding for both the yes and the no campaigns in that case.
If there is one Government view on the single currency, of course the Government should not be prohibited from expressing it. The committee's point was that the Government case should not receive double funding on such an important referendum issue. The Home Secretary mentioned Ministers taking civil servants' advice on the single currency during the campaign. That is perfectly proper, just as it is when Ministers have to take policy from civil servants during a general election campaign. The committee's concern was about expenditure and double funding.
As the hon. Member for Battersea said, I put forward a minority view on expenditure limits. I believe that disclosure is the key issue in dealing with the abuses—or perceived abuses—of the current system. I also believe that expenditure is a matter of freedom of choice and freedom of speech. In a general election, we should not

constrain a party's expenditure. Indeed, that is the committee's unanimous view on referendum campaigns. At paragraph 12.47, the freedom of speech argument is adduced as a reason for not having a ceiling on referendum expenditure.
We must put in context the amount that is spent in most election campaigns. Most companies' annual expenditure on marketing and advertising for major products is more than is spent by political parties in a general election campaign, which is, none the less, a much more important matter. As Peter Riddell suggested in evidence, I do not think that a ceiling would work. There would be so many difficulties of interpretation and possibilities of abuse that, for the impact that it would have, the game would hardly be worth the candle.
It has been argued that a ceiling would prevent political parties from spending their money unwisely, but that is the responsibility of the parties themselves. We spent an awful lot of money unwisely in the 1997 general election campaign, but that was our fault, and it is not the duty of the state to save us from our faults. There is a nannyish element to such arguments.
Those are the arguments of principle and of practice that led me to the view that I reached. I am glad that there has been such a positive response to the report, and that the Home Secretary wants to legislate as soon as possible, but it is important to see the package as a whole, and to ensure that any referendums that are coming up are conducted within the framework that we set out.

Mr. Phil Woolas: I hope to embarrass the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) by largely agreeing with him on the report's call for extra funding for policy development.
Political parties have reached a paradox, as there is general agreement that the profession of politics is held in low regard, but we need to have well-funded political parties—and especially policy development—to get out of that situation. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was absolutely right when he said that we need to distinguish clearly between policy development and campaigning or electioneering. As anyone who is familiar with political parties knows, it is perfectly possible to separate those two functions. The idea that businesses, trade unions or individuals can buy influence over policy leads to the accusations of corruption, with a small or a large "c".
I would go much further than the Neill recommendations on policy development. The arguments for state funding are best seen in continental Europe, and especially in Germany—and previously in West Germany—where part of the post-war settlement involved providing state funding for the political parties and establishing policy development bodies with taxpayers' money to act as a form of democratic guarantee. That system has served German political parties, right across the political divide, very well.
Given the low public standing of the profession of politics, I understand that taxpayers would not want their money spent on political campaigning or electioneering, but I think that the establishment of policy development bodies with state funding, on the principle that they would not accept any donations other than from the state, would afford a separation that allowed businesses, individuals


and trade unions to continue to donate money to the political party of their choice. I agree that they do that mainly for ideological reasons, and not through a desire to buy influence.
If the recommendation were accepted—I noticed that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was sceptical—it would have more far-reaching consequences than the committee may have recognised. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) that an increase in state funding is inevitable, and I would support that if it were directed towards developing policy forums or think tanks. That would radically change the role of the civil service, and especially its relationship with an incoming Government.
We need to ensure that Opposition parties are much better prepared for government when they take office. I do not want to rehearse the stereotypes of Sir Humphrey and his delaying tactics, but I believe that many of the incidents that have been cited tonight—including the Ecclestone affair—would have been avoided had the Labour party's policy development been more advanced in opposition.
I do not see why we should not be able to second civil servants, industrialists, academics and others to state-funded policy development forums, to help parties to work out policies in more detail. That would not be an abandonment of ideology, as some have argued; it would help political parties, of whatever ideology, to develop practical policies that could be implemented on coming to office.
On Short money, suffice it to say that I would welcome a huge increase in the allocation for Government Back Benchers. I sometimes think that Labour Back Benchers provide a better opposition than the official Opposition. On that basis, perhaps we should get some of the money. I will not go too far down that road, as I can imagine the Whips suggesting a link with, for example, how often we read our pagers.
I remind hon. Members of the background to the introduction of in the trade unions ballots on the political levy. I share the consensus that the ballots have by and large improved the situation. The trade unions are more accountable, and the systems are transparent. The effect was the opposite of the intention.
I believe—this is backed up by a reading of the Hansard reports of debates of the time—that the then Government's intention in enacting the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993 was to drive a wedge between the trade unions and the Labour party, and to cut the party's funding. The expectation was that at least some trade union members would vote against affiliation; but that did not happen. In practice, the links between the unions and the party were strengthened.
Wearing my party political hat, I have a word of warning about the proposals for shareholder ballots. Recommendation 34 is fairly specific, but not specific enough for us to make a judgment on how companies would decide whether to make political donations.
There is a key difference between a company and a trade union. For trade unions, there is one member, one vote; for companies, there is to be one share, one vote—or that is how I read recommendation 34. That is very different from one shareholder, one vote. As we know, shareholding in most public limited companies is heavily biased in favour of institutional shareholders. It is

conceivable that small shareholders would vote one way and the big institutions would vote another way. We need to be careful about the details of such proposals, to avoid the pendulum swinging too far. We do not want to look back in 10 or 20 years and wonder why we went so far.
One of the key principles recommended by the Neill report is to achieve greater public confidence that individuals and organisations do not buy influence in political parties. There has been controversy in my constituency for some time about the administration of the Melton Medes pension fund. I hope that the House will bear with me on this practical example, because it illustrates the urgent need for the implementation of the majority of the Neill committee's report.
The scheme has been subject to accusations of bullying and maladministration. The female workers in the factory have been forced, under threat of dismissal—this has been admitted by the chairman of the trustees—to sign contracts that postpone their retirement age from 60 to 65. There are allegations of intimidation against some of the members of the pension fund.
That may be of little interest to the House. However, the chairman of Melton Medes, Mr. Nat Puri, is listed in the Register of Members' Interests as a major donor to the campaign of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) for the leadership of the Conservative party. He is also listed in the Labour party accounts as a major donor to the Labour party. The Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority and the Financial Services Authority have failed to order investigations into the administration of the pension fund. The members of the fund—the existing work force and the current pensioners—are very sceptical about the power of the financial watchdogs and the political process after the injustice that has taken place.
I am not suggesting that the Labour party, its Ministers or the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe are in any way involved in the events that I have described—indeed, I know that they are unaware of them. However, that does not reassure the members of the pension fund. Greater transparency and greater accountability are required.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Given what the hon. Gentleman has just said about what he is not alleging, what is his point? What is the connection between donations to any political party and the administration of the pension fund that he is talking about?

Mr. Woolas: My point is that in this case—and, I believe, in many others—the members of the pension fund have lost faith in the political party system, because they believe that both parties have failed to protect their interests. The disclosure of the donations by the company looks pretty raw, given the effects of the decisions of that company. I want more transparency, to reassure the members of that pension fund that there has been no untoward activity. I believe there has been none, but they do not share my view.
I was a senior manager in an affiliated trade union for several years, and have been on the receiving end of many requests for donations to the Labour party—and, on a couple of occasions, to other parties. My experience is that the trade unions suffer from the accusation that they are buying policy, just as much as the Labour party does. It is a two-way relationship.


That is why an increase in state funding for policy development would benefit not just the Opposition parties, but the party of government, currently the Labour party, and the trade unions. The trade unions would be free to carry on giving money for leaflets, stickers and posters, up to whatever limit is set—£15 million or £20 million have been suggested—but there could be no accusation that policy was being influenced by donations or affiliations in any political party. That would improve our political process, providing modern, professional political parties and better policy, thereby serving the public much better than the current system.

Mr. Martin Bell: I shall be brief and non-partisan—brief because the issues are fairly simple, and non-partisan because it is difficult for a party of one to be partisan, just as it is difficult for a party of one to qualify for Short money, although, as the party leader, I would not mind if the rules changed.
I have an interest to declare. The debate concerns broad issues of trust and confidence in the democratic process, which propelled me, rather to my surprise, into Parliament. In my written and oral evidence to the committee, I suggested a national campaign spending limit for parties of £2 million each. The committee went for a higher figure. That much money cannot be raised on the rubber chicken circuit, because there are not enough rubber chickens or party members with the stomach to digest them, so it will have to be raised by other means. Some of it will come from big contributors, which gets us again into the grey area of whether we are selling and buying influence or selling and buying access.
I welcome the imposition of limits, just as I welcome the recommendations on referendums. The Home Secretary had an opportunity in the debate to accept that an independent mechanism will be necessary for the conduct of referendums. I have entered into a single-issue and very short-term alliance with the Conservative party on this, which I am sure will not spread to other issues. We are backed in our campaign for a real referendum by Charter 88, the Electoral Reform Society and, I think, the majority of the British people, who cannot accept that the Government can be umpire and player on the same field. There is a question of legitimacy. When a referendum is over, the losing side has to accept that it was fairly conducted. That was part of the problem with the Welsh referendum.
The public will not allow any more public money for political parties—money that could otherwise be spent on schools and hospitals. It is up to the parties to fire up enthusiasm and match the idealism of the young with the idealism of the not so young. They have to generate support to get a lot of small contributions. 1 have perhaps a unique experience in politics, after an incident last January involving a tabloid newspaper. I found that I had to pay £9,400 in legal fees, which I had not known I owed. People started sending me the money, so I have experience of running a fund lowering campaign. If any party wants to draw on that experience, I shall be happy to help it out.
The issue of honours is important. In the companion volume to the report, the most fascinating evidence of all is that given on 13 May by Lord Pym, the chairman of

the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee, when he addressed the issue whether there was any link at all between contributing to party funds and the award of honours. I had expected him to say that there was absolutely none, and that that would occur under no circumstances and over his dead body. What he actually said was:
On the whole, the principle we follow is that if somebody gives their money to a political party, that is a bonus point rather than a minus because they are supporting what they believe in with their own money … Our responsibility is to look at the totality of the contribution made by individuals and weigh them all together. Donations may be one aspect of their achievements; it may be a minor one, but it is an aspect.
Donations are an achievement? Signing a cheque is an achievement? That seems to me to be both a corruption of the language and a corruption of politics. If Lord Pym really believes that, if he has not changed his mind, if he has been correctly transcribed, and if words have the meaning that they appear to have, he should step aside. If any other member of his committee believes the same, he or she too should step aside, so that their positions can be filled by people who would place an absolute and unbreachable fire wall between donations and the award of honours. It is a matter of integrity, and of trust in government. People care about that. I hope that the Minister will address that point.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) said that the best opposition came from the Back Benches, and he may have heard me say from a sedentary position that that is not unusual. Back Benchers are the backbone of parties. They are the folk who go out to fight and to argue in the streets. They know the Government's policy, and they are the first to detect the rapid shifts that occur as soon as an Opposition become the Government. That is why they, being tied to the true faith, become the most devastating critics of the Government. Perhaps they are not as vocal early in a Parliament as they will later become, but let me assure the hon. Gentleman that, with the majority that his party has, it will happen. I have seen it all before.
My first point is about the nature of the political party. I am on the same footing as the Home Secretary and several others in believing that political parties should seek a mass membership. If the membership is big enough, and if it is supported by relatively small membership fees—I am against large fees—it will be followed by fund raising, canvassing, and much more, as naturally as day follows night. I am against the idea of a political elite receiving large sums of money from public funds so that it can run elections and Governments by buying space in newspapers and time on the other media. That would be totally wrong, and would be destructive of the democratic principle. We should stay as far from it as we can.
The Home Secretary said that he would write to ask for representatives from each major party. What does he consider to be a major party? A major party in one part of the United Kingdom, such as his own Labour party, can be totally non-existent in another part, as his is in my Province. I hope that he will bear that in mind.
The report mentions £5,000 for donations. That seems a reasonable sum, not too big and not too small. State funding should be given only through the Short money.


I find it repugnant that any political party should look to the public purse for money to run its operations in its headquarters, in the House or in the country. If we are to offer money, it should be done strictly for parliamentary purposes. The Short money was created for that reason, and that is how it should be used.
The Home Secretary, in setting out his views, did not refer at all to Northern Ireland. That was left to the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). The Opposition's Front-Bench spokesman did not mention Northern Ireland, and nor did the Liberal Democrat spokesman. We have been told that there should be openness regarding money for elections and so on. I have glanced through the large report—we do not have time to read all the reports that land on our desks—and hon. Members will understand that I concentrated on the Northern Ireland section.
I read the concerns expressed by the Social Democratic and Labour party, and the reference to the wishes of its supporters to remain incognito. I well understand that desire. A brick, or worse, through the window, attacks on one's children, and threats and intimidation are not common on this side of the Irish sea, but we have to live with them. That said, I believe that anyone prepared to put forward a political point of view must be prepared to defend it in every forum and against every enemy. For that reason, I diminish the comments of the SDLP about concerns for the safety of its people, although those concerns are perhaps greater even than those of other political parties in Northern Ireland.
The strange position of the Irish Republic was mentioned by the right hon. Member for South Norfolk, and is set out in the report, beginning at page 75. Under the Ireland Act 1949, the Irish Republic and its citizens enjoy a peculiar position in British law. The Republic itself maintains a wide definition of who is an Irish citizen or national. We must take those two things into account.
Paragraph 5.38 agrees that nationals of the Irish Republic are not really foreigners because of the 1949 Act. Paragraph 5.39 says:
it would be virtually impossible to halt the flow of funds from the Dublin offices of the SDLP or Sinn Fein".
The Home Secretary must realise that halting and policing are not the same thing. They should not be treated as lightly as the report treats them. It is crazy to license one or two parties in the United Kingdom to raise money by such means, and to accept donations from such sources, without our giving the same licence to all parties. That position is not sustainable. If any of the major parties cared to go to the European Court of Human Rights, the Government might find themselves in major difficulty.
My concern is increased by the fact that there are difficulties in some people's minds about the source of some IRA-Sinn Fein money. There are allegations of drug dealing, of robbery, of rackets, of intimidation and of protection money, to name just a few. The public manifestation of Messrs Adams, McGuinness and others going to the United States for $500-a-plate dinners and other fund raising is also hard to tackle. We would be remiss, however, in not attempting to tackle those problems. We cannot turn a blind eye to them. We must investigate them, and we must have answers. If we are to allow money to be handed out willy-nilly, the handout must be policed.
Who is it who tries to conceal the sources of its money? Only one party does—Sinn Fein-IRA. That party is no friend of the democratic principle, and we should not

connive at allowing it to get away with, literally, the murder, intimidation and violence that it uses to raise some of its funds. We must ask serious questions, and we must police carefully the sources of that party's funding. We need to know. Nothing frightens the evildoer as much as the spotlight of publicity shining into the darkest corners of his behaviour. That is a dark corner of those people's behaviour, let us get a searchlight on to it as soon as possible.
I do not hold referendums in high favour, for a number of reasons, not least that the Government always set the question, which has a great effect on the outcome. Under the Northern Ireland (Border Poll) Act 1972, which has been repealed, the question was, "Do you want Northern Ireland to become part of the Irish Republic?" and about 97 per cent. of the people said no.
In the last referendum in Northern Ireland, the question on the ballot paper was not the issue. Essentially, the question was, "Do you want peace?" What fool wants war? It was a classic case of misdirection, as the real question was, "Do you want the IRA in government?" Of course, that issue never really surfaced. As a result of that affair, I am of the opinion that equal funds should be available to both sides of the argument, and that it is equally important to allow a much longer period to sell the case.

Mrs. Laing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem of the wording of the question in a referendum could be solved if an electoral or independent commission were given the power to scrutinise the way in which it was worded, and if that power were taken away from the Government?

Mr. Ross: One can build in such safeguards until the cows come home, but the best referendum is a general election. No matter how many safeguards one builds in, the Government will eventually see to it that their will carries the day when it comes to the question asked. I have been in this place long enough to be highly suspicious of safeguards, as I know how weak they normally are.
There are all sorts of problems. The Government of the day are to be neutral, but their members may campaign. There will be associated costs. The Government's position has already been mentioned in the debate. Whenever one goes down the road of a referendum, one finds that the Government manage to promote their ideas through the question. If the referendum has the authority of the Government behind it—the power of Government with the media and so forth—the result is a foregone conclusion. It will be what the Government desire it to be.
Another little problem is that, under our system, no Parliament can bind its successor. Referendums are an attempt to bind a successor Parliament, which is another good reason for not going down that road. However, a successor Government could overturn the result of a referendum if they had the guts, because power lies not with referendums but with the majority in this House. No Member of this House should allow that power to be taken away from us.
We should consider carefully the Government's role in the Northern Ireland referendum this year. Hon. Members have referred to the Welsh referendum, and I know of the hullabaloo associated with it. Most people in Great Britain took little notice of the arguments advanced during the


Northern Ireland referendum campaign, but large gobs of Government money were expended. As far as I am aware, the figures have never been given. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell me where I can find those sums in the Northern Ireland Government accounts. Where are they set out clearly? How can I find out which parties expended what money?
I noticed from the evidence given by the president of my party that we received some donations from the Irish Republic to fight the referendum. Since the party and I were of divided opinions in that matter, I would be interested to know who the individual donors were. Was it the Joseph Rowntree Foundation or one of those wealthy multimillionaires who inhabit the Irish Republic and who are always so willing to buy Northern Ireland businesses and so forth? I think that we deserve to be told. It is not merely the general public who want to know where the money comes from in referendum campaigns and party political politicking. I suspect that many Back Benchers on both sides of the House want to know because it would give us a clearer idea of the real forces that drive both Front Benches.
The leaked letter from Mr. Tom Kelly, the spin doctor in the Northern Ireland Office, listed all the people whom the Government machine in Northern Ireland had to influence. The Government did not deny it, but simply complained to high heaven about the leak. Judging by the way in which some of the individuals and elements named in the letter have behaved since, it is plain to those of us who take an interest in such matters that the pressures of Mr. Kelly and the Government had the desired effect. Since the Conservative party is apparently to publish its accounts for this year and last, perhaps the Government will publish the accounts of expenditure on the referendums in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. We want to see clearly what the sums were.
I could say much more on the subject, but will let that suffice. I have a number of concerns about the way in which the whole affair has been handled. We need more openness and fairness, and we also need much more forthrightness from Governments of all parties.

Mr. Peter Brooke: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). A familiar cry in some Irish elections is, "Vote early, vote often." Not long ago during the passage of a certain Bill, it was not clear when the Divisions would occur and I sought advice from my former private secretary at the Northern Ireland Office, who was sitting in the Box. He told me that there would be no Divisions until long into the evening, but that we would then vote frequently. I said that that was one of those rare instances of "Vote late, vote often."
In the interests of brevity, I will not comment in detail on any of the 100 recommendations in the report, which I welcome. I do not accept Northern Ireland as a deliberate exclusion, as the position in that respect applies to all the other recommendations.
As a former chairman of the Conservative party, I declare an interest. Until our party conference a month ago, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) became chairman, 10 members of both

Houses had served as party chairmen since we won the general election in 1979—one did so twice. Three other ex-chairmen are still Members of the House. One of them, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), opened the debate for the official Opposition, to which the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) alluded.
With 10 chairmen in 19 years, my term in office from November 1987 to July 1989 was about par for the course, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield was less than personally helpful when he said in his opening remarks that the Home Secretary had concentrated on events a decade ago, which to my unmathematical mind puts them neatly and precisely in the middle of my term of office.
The hon. Member for Battersea said that he looked forward to my contribution, and I can shed light on one aspect of the Neill report—recommendation 45 on by-election expenditure. A footnote on page 111, on paragraph 10.5, refers to the special rate of expenditure for by-elections being introduced in 1989. Those of us with any exposure to by-elections before the 1989 legislation knew that there was an element of fiction to all parties' returns of by-election expenditure, but that agents were the only actors in the piece who were liable to a gaol sentence if the return was successfully questioned. It was clearly not possible that that should go on, but legislation had to have all-party support.
My right hon. Friend Lord Hurd of Westwell, then Home Secretary, delegated to me the task of negotiating with the shadow Home Secretary, Lord Hattersley, who in turn deputed negotiation to Joyce Gould, as she then was, in Walworth road on the basis that, if it was all right with her, it would be all right with him. We in turn reached agreement. I note that the task of reaching agreement was given to an officer and an official of the two party headquarters. Although a fair number of contributors to this debate have metaphorically held their noses about party headquarters, that Shakespearean standby, the second murderer, can have his or her uses upon a noble stage.
The Home Secretary, in a speech only marginally flawed by partiality, attributed to the past two decades the palm for improper political finance in our history. I thought that he was a little forgetful of the 18th and 19th centuries. In 1832, that great year in our parliamentary history, 850 out of the 1,000 voters in Stamford were bribed. If I had been one of the 150, I would have wondered what was wrong with me. Between 1832 and 1857, 443 petitions to invalidate parliamentary elections were mounted and 75 were sustained. In 1880, there were 42 petitions after the general election, of which 16 in England were successful; eight led to the appointment of royal commissions, and seven towns were temporarily disfranchised.
Even in this century, I thought that the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) was over-pious in forgetting that notorious tout for honours, Maundy Gregory, the subject of three biographies from which one can distil a description of him as an actor cum secret service informer cum suspected murderer. Lloyd George, who was Prime Minister but not leader of his party, derived a war chest


of £1.5 million in 1920s sterling from those activities. I cannot blame Lloyd George for giving an earldom—for providing him with £200,000—to Lord Farquhar.

Mr. Skinner: You can say that again.

Mr. Brooke: An earldom to Lord Farquhar. It was an absent-minded transfer, at a time when Lord Farquhar was treasurer of the Conservative party. I suspect that the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) may have forgotten the industrialist who gave Ramsay MacDonald in his first premiership the interest from £40,000 and the use of a Daimler, and who, coincidentally, received a baronetcy shortly afterwards.
Ironically, the sale of honours between the 1890s and the 1920s did much to enervate the local efforts of the Liberal party. Without wishing to intrude on private grief, I suspect that one of the reasons for my party's recent retreat in the English metropolitan boroughs, where we now hold six seats out of 124, owes much to over-reliance on business funding and a reduction in the number of businesses still controlled within the cities where they were once headquartered.
I have quoted before in the House the instructions received at my mother's knee never to jog backwards, although she rendered it more felicitously. There has been talk of damascene conversions in the Opposition. For myself, recalling my mother's instructions, I welcome the committee's recommendations unreservedly. I was sorry not to draw from the Home Secretary precisely which recommendations he did not accept. The loose language of soundbites had alluded to accepting the main thrust of the recommendations or, in his language today, the main findings. I infer from the phrase "accepting the main thrust" that the less attractive recommendations fell into something that I described to the Leader of the House two and a half weeks ago as the lesser thrust. So far, the precise detail of the lesser thrust has not been vouchsafed to us.
The Government must be careful in taunting us on any delay in disclosure, to which we are already committed. In return for the official Opposition's acceptance of the recommendations in their entirety, we are promised a draft Bill next summer. I may be doing the Home Secretary an injustice, but I did not pick up whether the delay in legislation is because of drafting difficulties or the scale of the rest of the Government's business programme, which would send a message about the Government's sense of priority on these issues.
The Corrupt Practices (Suspension of Elections) Act 1883 was provoked by the experiences of the 1880 general election and was an outstanding success, which we would like to see reflected in post-Neill legislation. Between 1874 and 1880, Conservative central office spent nothing, while Conservative candidates at elections spent £500,000 in 1870s sterling. Declared candidates' expenditure in 1880 was £41 million at 1980s prices. In 1885, it fell to £28 million and in 1886 to £19 million. At 1980s prices, it went back above £30 million only twice between 1886 and today—ironically, in 1906 and 1910.
Not only was candidates' expenditure cut, but the habit of constituency associations was formed in the 1880s and 1890s. After the 1883 legislation, in the words of an historian of British political finances,
the cut in permitted spending led directly to the growth of political participation.

My father served on the Maxwell Fyfe commission during the 1945 to 1950 Parliament, which gave rise to Lord Woolton's switch from individual Members of Parliament funding the party locally to the greater energy of more widely based associations. Out of crises, I say to Conservative Members, can come opportunities.
Finally, I want to express in a bouquet of unreserved welcomes to the Neill committee a particularly unreserved welcome to its referendum rules and how it reached them. There has in some aspects of what I think the Labour party calls "the project" been some evidence of lack of preparation. As a strategic planning professor once taught me at the Harvard business school, "If you do not know where you are trying to get to, any road will get you there." That observation may reasonably be applied to the Government's approach to the serried referendums and their rules, as the Neill committee mentioned. When we press for universal referendum rules, junior Ministers in charge of Bills have regarded that as outside their remits. We are in the Neill committee's debt for having produced such rules.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: It is a difficult task to follow the excellent, elegant elucidation by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) of this difficult subject. Last week, I introduced a Bill to set up an election commission with powers over the conduct and financing of referendums. The Minister looks surprised. It was a ten-minute Bill.

Mr. George Howarth: I am sorry if I gave the hon. Lady the wrong impression. I was simply nodding in recognition of the fact that she had introduced such a Bill.

Mrs. Laing: I thank the Minister for clarifying that. I thought that the Government had not noticed.
The main effect of my Bill would be to implement the recommendations of the Neill report. I thought that the Government had not noticed it, because they did not oppose it, although there was every opportunity to do so. No Labour Member opposed it. I had hoped that the inference to be drawn from the failure to oppose it was that the Government were in favour of its provisions. Sadly, it seems from what the Home Secretary said that that is not the case.
The Home Secretary was not clear about the Government's attitude to Lord Neill's recommendations on referendums. He said that the chapter on referendums needed careful consideration. We have learnt to interpret the Government saying that a matter needs careful consideration to mean that the matter will take a very long time to consider, and that they will effectively kick it into touch. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster will tell me whether, not being a rugby expert, I have misunderstood the sporting metaphor, but I believe that kicking something into touch means delay, delay and more delay. Why do the Government want to play for time on such an urgent issue? We have to regulate the conduct of referendums soon, because there could be another referendum at any minute.
A referendum is not a mere opinion poll, to be used at the whim of the Government of the day. The matters that are likely to be put to a referendum in the near future are


far too serious to be treated in the way that the present Government—or, indeed, any Government—treat opinion poll results, by spinning them in the media to their own advantage. There is a threat of referendums on several important subjects, such as whether there should be a fundamental change to our voting system, whether the pound should be merged with the euro and whether the composition of Parliament itself should be altered. It is incredible—unbelievable—that the Government are willing to conduct referendums on such fundamental aspects of our democratic system, but unwilling to entrench that process of consultation in a properly determined framework.
The Home Secretary today showed the Government's acceptance of the Neill committee's recommendation that an election commission be set up to regulate elections. Apparently it is right that we should have further regulation of elections, but no regulation of referendums. Where is the logic in that? Perhaps the Minister will answer that question. The Government are saying that elections must be fair, but that it is not necessary for referendums to be fair. Would anyone, on either side of the House, argue that referendums do not have to be conducted fairly? If not, we have to ask ourselves what lies behind the Government's reluctance to accept the Neill committee's proposals. Of what are the Government afraid? Why do they want to retain a biased system?
The referendum in Wales has been mentioned many times today, but hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that I shall refer to the referendum in Scotland. First, I shall quote the evidence to the Neill committee of Mr. Raymond Robertson, a former Member of Parliament, who is now chairman of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party. He said:
The Government was a player on one side of the referendum. The Government were campaigning for a yes vote. The Prime Minister came to Scotland twice. The Secretary of State for Scotland led the yes campaign. They were able to write the rules and an information leaflet and to send it out to every house. I think that is fundamentally unfair in a free society.
I agree.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Is the hon. Lady not concerned that the Scottish Conservative party has still not come to terms with the fact that the people of Scotland are getting the Parliament they want? The fact that Mr. Robertson complained in that manner serves only to confirm that the Conservative party in Scotland continues to be out of touch with the wishes of the Scottish people.

Mrs. Laing: The hon. Gentleman could not be more wrong, and I cannot deny his remarks vehemently enough. My argument is not about the result of the referendum in Scotland. I am the first to admit that, no matter what rules applied or how much money was spent by any and all sides in the referendum campaign, the result would have been the same. The result was overwhelmingly in favour of what the Government, the Scottish National party and the Liberal Democrats had argued, and I am not challenging that result. However, since the hon. Gentleman has made the point, I have to answer it: the Conservative party in Scotland is now campaigning to win seats in the new Scottish Parliament, and is working to

make that Parliament work. I may be sceptical about whether that Parliament can ever work, but that is not the issue this evening.
I am fair, and I believe in putting both sides of the argument; therefore, having quoted Mr. Robertson, I shall tell the House what the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office told the Neill committee. He said:
We tried very hard indeed to achieve objectivity, in that the words would carry meaning in terms of significance, but no hint of advocacy that 'If you do this on 11 September, Scotland will be some nirvana afterwards.' But you are right: it is a difficult process.
The Minister was absolutely right: it is a difficult process to achieve that objectivity. In fact, it is impossible for any Government, no matter what their political colours, to achieve it. That is why we need fair funding for fair referendums.
The Home Secretary has considered the reasoned plea for real referendums, a campaign that has the support of hon. Members from all parties in the House and, indeed, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), whom the Conservatives were pleased to welcome to the campaign, although we understand that he does not want to join us in all our campaigns. It also has the support of several Members of another place, the Electoral Reform Society, Charter 88, the Constitution Unit and the Institute for Constitutional Research.
We have called for, first, the establishment of an independent commission. The role of such a commission could be carried out by the electoral commission which the Home Secretary has welcomed as part of Lord Neill's recommendations. Secondly, we want the commission to report within three months on a clear set of rules to govern the conduct and financing of referendums. That is a matter of urgency, as I hope the Minister recognises. There are many matters to be examined and clarified: for example, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) mentioned, the wording of the question asked in a referendum, what constitutes a sufficient majority and who is eligible to vote in a referendum. That last question was raised during the referendums in Scotland and Wales, but Ministers never answered it; they simply sidestepped it.
Those referendums are now behind us, but the question remains for future referendums. It is ludicrous that, in Scotland, leaflets about the referendum were printed in Cantonese because people who had just come from China to reside in Scotland and to do a good job working in Chinese restaurants there had a right to vote in the referendum on the future constitutional position in Scotland. People from China had the right to vote, but soldiers serving in Scottish regiments who were temporarily resident in England because of their work in the British Army were not allowed to vote. That is iniquitous. It is simply not fair. It is one of the many matters that should be dealt with and ruled on by an independent commission before we have another debacle during a so-called consultation of the people.
The third thing for which the campaign for real referendums has called is that no referendum should be held in future except one that is conducted in accordance with the rules laid down by the commission. The Electoral Reform Society has called that a level playing field for referendums. What could be the motive of any hon. Member who purports to uphold democracy, but who wants referendums to be conducted other than on a fair


and level playing field? A referendum must not only be fair, but be seen to be fair, so that its result is accepted by all sides, winners and losers, and by everyone who is affected by its outcome. That is why the rules must be clear, obvious and properly constituted. Campaigns must also be fairly funded. That unarguable truth leads inevitably to the necessity for public core funding, which the Neill committee also correctly recommended in its excellent report.
It is absurd and indefensible that in this sophisticated information age, in which our democratic system conducts general elections according to strict rules—that is one reason why ours is one of the oldest and most stable democracies in the world—we have, over the past year, condoned a situation in which the Government have been able to spend taxpayers' money promoting one side of a referendum campaign. By not accepting the Neill committee's recommendations today, the Government and all Labour Members are continuing to condone that unfair situation. That point cannot be argued; it is obviously unfair and therefore undemocratic.
Lord Neill has recommended simply:
The government of the day in future referendums should, as a government, remain neutral and should not distribute at public expense literature, even purportedly 'factual' literature, setting out or otherwise promoting its case.
That is such a reasonable recommendation that it is difficult to understand why the Government have not accepted it with alacrity and enthusiasm. Indeed, that recommendation is the essence of democracy. The Government cannot wriggle out of that, and every Member who defends democracy should now call on the Government to implement the Neill committee's proposals on fair referendums. If that is not done swiftly, the Government must, at the very least, immediately undertake to hold the next referendum according to those proposals.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: We welcome the conclusions of the Neill report, and accept all its recommendations, particularly that on national limits on campaign expenditure. As the report points out, that is in the spirit of the original 19th-century legislation, which first introduced upper levels on electoral expenditure.
We have all seen the ridiculous spectacle of candidates drawing up their return of election expenses, perhaps checking whether they sent somebody a telegram and working out the results to the last penny, while they are surrounded by hundreds of thousands of pounds-worth of expenditure by national party campaigns, none of which has been accounted for in any way and which dwarfs into insignificance expenditure by individual candidates.
We should be grateful that we are in danger of being saved from ourselves and from following the example of the United States, where year after year election expenditure has increased and the only effect has been to reduce the electoral turnout and increase apathy and disillusionment with the political process. Lord Neill touches on that point.
I welcome the committee's suggestions of corresponding limits of £1.5 million for the Scottish Parliament elections and limits for third parties who may be involved in election campaign funds. As of last month,

all the Scottish parties have stated their willingness to stick with those limits even in advance of legislation to enforce the recommendations.
I have to confess that, for my party, stopping short of the £1.5 million expenditure limit may not prove to be an insurmountable problem. However, I am concerned that some of our opponents have not spelt out precisely how they will stick to the suggested limit, and we need an urgent meeting between the Scottish parties to agree the precise interpretation of Lord Neill's recommendations. I am sorry that there are no Scottish Labour Members here to confirm their acceptance of those proposals. Perhaps they are preparing for a long night on Wednesday, when we shall discuss the Scotland Bill.
My main concern is that third parties who are involved in the election might not limit their expenditure. By third parties I mean not political parties but those who are involved in campaigning. Already, Bill Morris of the Transport and General Workers Union has been on a day trip to Scotland. He said that his union would campaign all out against independence. In an election for a Scottish Parliament, that is effectively campaigning for the Labour party and against the Scottish National party. Scottish National party Members want to know whether the TGWU and any other organisation that intends to get involved in the campaign will stick to the spirit of the Neill report and limit their expenditure.
That leads me to the recommendation that sources of funding should be limited to those who are entitled to vote and UK-based organisations. Scottish National party Members are happy to accept that. The logic of that carried through to Scottish elections would mean that only those who are entitled to vote in those elections and only Scottish organisations should contribute to the funding of campaigns for the Scottish Parliament. I am greatly concerned that organisations from outside Scotland would get involved in the next Scottish election or in a future referendum in Scotland. I am certain that, if any such organisation were to be involved, its motivation would not be to support the Scottish National party or further the cause of independence.
I am concerned also about the effects of Government information campaigns, which have been mentioned by other hon. Members. Recommendation 89 of the Neill report deals with that in relation to referendums, but I am particularly concerned about the forthcoming information campaign for the Scottish Parliament elections and the need to explain the new voting system. The Government plan a budget of £2 million to explain the voting method for the Scottish Parliament. At a press conference to announce that expenditure, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that he was concerned to explain to the people that the purpose of the second ballot is not to allow voters a second choice.
Hon. Members will remember that the first ballot is for the constituency seat and the second is for the regional lists, which are to be used to top up the membership of the Parliament to make it more proportional. The Secretary of State was apparently worried that some Labour voters might view the second ballot as an opportunity to express their second choice, which he feared might be the Scottish National party. Some of us think that the Secretary of State should be more worried about the fact that the SNP might be the first choice of some voters. However, I do not think that that falls into the category of legitimate information.


The legislation does not refer to the intention of a particular ballot, but alludes only to its outcome. Voters have a perfect right to interpret how a particular ballot is used and the reasons why it is used. On the basis of that argument, it might be possible for the Government to run an information campaign under the existing system declaring that the purpose of the ballot is not to allow tactical voting. That is why I have grave concerns about public information campaigns.
I welcome recommendation 17 of the Neill committee report, which states that it is an offence to discriminate against someone on the basis of his or her contribution to a political party. That provision might have come into effect earlier this year when the Scottish Office executed a volte face over the granting of a knighthood to Sean Connery when it discovered that he had donated money to the Scottish National party.
Recommendation 41 regarding Short money suggests not trebling Short money—that is recommendation 40, which I also welcome—but conducting a general review of Short money and examining the particular difficulties that affect smaller parties, which must deal with the same policy issues as larger parties but which receive little support from Short money in the form of research funding. I welcome that recommendation.
In conclusion—unusually, I find myself in agreement with the Opposition—I think that we need legislation in order to implement the Neill committee's recommendations in full as soon as possible. To some extent, the Government's reputation depends on their willingness to do that. Labour made much noise—particularly before the general election—about the system and the way in which it was being misused by the then Government. We now have a means of reforming the system, and it behoves the Government to implement the report in full at an early date.

9 pm

Mr. Dennis Skinner: This is one report by the do-gooders—the chattering classes—with which I agree. I support quite a number of the Neill committee's recommendations. The committee was established principally because there was so much financial sleaze that someone needed to step in. A list of proposals was put to the Neill committee with which I could not help but agree. I remember well standing here at the time of the Ecclestone affair—I think that was what it was called—and telling the Prime Minister that every adversity creates an opportunity.
I suggested to the Prime Minister that day that we should cap national spending in general elections. I proposed a figure, and the Neill committee—its members are a bit posher than me—has gone a bit higher. I said that, since major parties spend about £6 million financing 600-odd Labour and Tory candidates, that should be the official figure. If that is the amount that is spent in constituencies, an equivalent figure should be spent nationally. I think that that would help to clean up the political equivalent of the Augean stables.
As has already been said, we have had another basinful in the mid-term elections in the United States. A candidate named Feingold in Wisconsin stood for election to the Senate. He declared that he would not take any so-called

"soft" money, and he only just made it. Despite the fact that he was supported by all kinds of people, he nearly lost the election—he won by only a very narrow margin—because his opponent was able to spend a vast amount of money on his campaign. The sooner we take hold of this problem, the better.
I am quite enthused that the Tory party now thinks that the Neill committee's recommendations are great. It was not so long ago that the Tory Government would not even contemplate considering such issues. It is a little fanciful of the Tory party to go on about referendum campaigns, expenditure equality and the rest of it in an attempt to create the impression that the Labour party and this Government are dragging their feet purely and simply because of the referendum issue. I remember what happened in 1975, when—I have said this many times—those in favour of Britain remaining in the common market spent 10 times as much money campaigning as those of us who opposed them. The truth is that we would have lost anyway.
The turning point of that referendum campaign was the moment when the Prime Minister of the day, Harold Wilson—who had sat on the fence for God knows how long, saying, "On one hand this, but on the other that"—decided to jump off the fence and join those who were campaigning for a yes vote. I believe that that was the most significant thing that happened in that campaign. I kicked up merry hell about the £10 million, or whatever it was, that was spent, and I said that it was wrong that everyone had a little booklet shoved through their letter box; but in my heart, I know that that was the key decision.
In a referendum campaign on the euro, I expect the Government to put their case, and I expect different people to have different points of view. In case the Whips are listening, I point out that I declared in my general election manifesto:
I shall vote against a single currency.
That document was not printed by Millbank or the appropriate region of the Labour party; I did it myself. I did it because I thought, "Who knows? They might have a bit of a referendum some day or other, and I had better get my position clear." I regard that as more important than the money that the Tories keep talking about in the debate. In my view, that document gives me more backing than all the finances that anyone could talk about, because I have told my constituents the score.
I must say to everyone, including the Tories, that the referendum on the euro is already being softened up. You don't need to be an Einstein to realise what is happening. All the talk about equality in the amounts to be spent on the referendum is phoney, because anyone who is watching the signs knows that there is a lot of activity now—including among members of the Tory party, who are being lined up in all sorts of ways. The previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), is being lined up for this, that and the other. I hear that Chris Patten is going to be a European Commissioner; and the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) has been given a job in China.

Shona McIsaac: Send him.

Mr. Skinner: He is being sent in. I envisage that that softening-up process will continue in the next 12 months.


I rest secure in the knowledge that I shall vote against the euro on principle, irrespective of how many people are wooed from the Tory party, the Liberal party and so on. The referendum on the euro may be a close contest. I do not think that the result will be as clear-cut as the vote against proportional representation.
There will be no referendum on PR this side of a general election. The Liberal Democrats should get that into their noddles: even if they sit on Cabinet Committees and so on, the chance of a referendum before a general election has gone. When the leader of the Liberal Democrats went on "The Frost Programme" the other Sunday morning, he blew the gaff. He said to all the other Liberal Democrats, in as many words, "I'm going to let you down." It is time that they got rid of him, if that is how strongly he feels. He has already said that there will not be a referendum on PR before the next election.
That brings me back to the issue of finances. I do not believe that finances can be decisive if the referendum on PR is held on the tinpot proposals advanced by Lord Jenkins. He has a cheek, has he not, to talk about regulating our voting system when he is in the other place for life? He need not submit himself to the vote in any fashion. There is a strong body of opinion—which I do not believe money can change—against PR.
The House will have gathered by now that, unlike the Liberal Democrats, I do not go a bundle on referendums. It so happens that we made a manifesto pledge. Unlike on some more important issues, I shall not have to walk the plank on it. Nevertheless, I expect to cast my vote in the House in accordance with what I believe. In some cases I shall vote in accordance with my constituents' views and in some cases—especially on the monarchy—I shall probably vote against the views of a majority of my constituents, but I always expect to vote in accordance with what I believe. That is what I am sent to this place to do.
The referendum issue will not be changed by the issue of money. The question is whether it can be sold to the public, and on PR I do not believe that it can. On the euro—that is a different matter.
I welcome the fact that the Neill committee has presented its proposals, which will stop all those foreign donations. The Tories will not get money from the Chinese communists or the Cypriots. They will get no more money from Asil Nadir, and none from Greece and other places. I welcome that. It is almost as though I had sat on that committee, which has come up with such great proposals.
Incidentally, I helped to write the Labour party's proposals when I was on the NEC, and almost all of them have been accepted by Lord Neill and the rest of the committee.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) will have to do something about the referendum issue to satisfy the whims of Opposition Members and others. I do not accept that the Tory party has a case when it argues that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and others are holding back because they are frightened of that issue.
The package of recommendations as a whole is a big advance. If it helps to halt the trend towards what is happening over there in America, we shall have done everybody a service. If it stops all those posters on every hoarding, most of them telling a pack of lies, and the

expenditure of £250,000 in the national newspapers in a general election campaign, we shall have performed a valuable service.
I do not say that that will make politics 100 per cent. honest, but it will go down that track. It represents a big advance. When we get the recommendations on the statute book before the end of this Parliament in order to enact them for the next Parliament, that will be a useful step forward.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: I shall be brief. It is with some reserve that I speak, with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) having returned to his seat. Last Thursday, he accused me of not having read the report that was the subject matter of our debate, when in fact I had read it, although I admit that I did not give much evidence of having done so. I must declare that I have not read today's report in its entirety. I have, however, read chapter 12, and I shall confine my remarks to that.
I took great exception to the comments of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) on political donations, but I shall not stray into that ground, as I have not read the report. However, I have dipped into the telephone directory of evidence and read many of the submissions. I draw the attention of the House especially to the evidence given by Peter Riddell of The Times, which I found lucid and extremely educated. I speak in an entirely unpartisan manner, as Mr. Riddell has been particularly uncomplimentary about me.
Chapter 12 deals with referendums. The issue is not just that we are having so many referendums—I believe that 13 were promised in the Labour party manifesto, although I freely admit that I have not read that document—but the importance of the questions before us in referendums. Those are questions central to our constitution and are almost impossible to unpick. Once passed, the policies that are put in place—the changes to the constitution—are almost irreversible. It is almost a case of one man, one vote, once. There is something totalitarian about the very suggestion of the settled will of the people. The phrase sends a shudder down my spine.
Nevertheless, the issue of referendums is a hugely important question, and it is therefore proper that the Neill committee has dealt with it—and, I think, well. An important principle of democracy is at stake. We know that the central principle of democracy is that the will of the majority should prevail. However, I think that there is an even more important principle that underpins that, and that is that the minority—the losers—must accept that the will of the majority has been legitimately arrived at. I certainly think that that will not be the case unless we are prepared to examine and implement the recommendations of the committee on referendums.
There was always that lingering resentment referred to by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about the 1975 referendum. I understood that the expenditure was 20:1 in terms of the money that was spent by each side. Nevertheless, the question of finance is particularly important. The evidence given to the committee in that respect was quite instructive, and was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) in the context of the Welsh experience and the funding of the Welsh no campaign.


Recommendation 84 on core funding is important. There is a widely held perception that there must be a fair opportunity for each side to put its case to the voters. It is not sufficient to say—the Labour party's evidence to the committee appeared to suggest this—that, if protagonists are not able to co-ordinate a campaign and raise funds to finance it, it is evident that they have little political support. The basis of a referendum is that it must reach out beyond the organised political parties to those who are not and never have been politically organised.
I think that one example will suffice. Let us suppose that we had had a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. The three main political parties would have lined up to back the treaty; they would have organised and run such a campaign. However, those who opposed the treaty—I submit that they comprised a large proportion of the electorate—would have found themselves without a ready-made organisation to make the case. It is important that core funding, as proposed by the committee, should be in place and available to assist in those circumstances. Therefore, I believe that recommendation 84 is sound.
Placing national limits on referendum campaigns is, I think, much more problematical. In 1975, the two campaigns were required to publish their accounts, in the hope that that would provide some restraint on their expenditure. I think that that was a pious hope. However, I am not sure that there is much else that can be done without unnecessarily restricting free speech.
It is unnecessary and undesirable to require opponents to operate under one political umbrella, even if they support the same side on a political question. There are quite different ideological routes that might lead to the same case. That is obviously clear with the campaign that would emerge against the single European currency. It comprises a host of very different groups reflecting different ideological backgrounds. I believe that it would be a restraint on free speech to impose any sort of financial limit on those groups collectively.
As for the role of Government, I entirely support recommendation 89. I differ from the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) in this respect. I believe that it is proper for Ministers actively to campaign in a referendum campaign without using the Government machine to support that case.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: When the Home Secretary opened this interesting debate, I chastised him for beginning inauspiciously on a partisan note, which is not how he conducted himself in last Thursday's debate. I am afraid to say that he set the tone for some of his hon. Friends who followed him. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) has left the Chamber, because I intended to address a few remarks to her. I hope that she will reappear.
The background to the debate is the Labour party's contention that the report has been brought before Parliament entirely because of shortcomings and a lack of standards in the Conservative party. That was evident in the remarks of the Home Secretary and those of the hon. Members for Cleethorpes and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I thought it was only a matter of time before the hon. Gentleman became an establishment figure. Now that we

know he is the author of this report, his hour has arrived. I do not know what it will do for his 74 per cent. vote in Bolsover now that his constituents are aware that he is part of the establishment in the House.
In various interventions, I have said that the criticism that has been levelled at the Conservative party is unjust. There is no doubt that, in the run-up to the last election, the Labour party sought to profit from the allegation that the Conservative party's standards had fallen below par.
The idea that the Labour Government have, since the election, behaved in a pristine fashion is contradicted by the facts. The Foreign Secretary sought to install his mistress, at public expense, in an office in—[Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) may have been intimating, that was a disgrace. The Paymaster General has been upbraided by the Standards and Privileges Committee. A Labour Member has lost the Whip because he has brought the party into disrepute. Another Labour Member faces election charges, and we have seen squalid activity by the Labour party in local government. Labour Members do not like to be reminded of that, because they have tried to pretend that they have come into government to clean up an unclean act.
The hon. Member for Cleethorpes has not returned. I do not want to be discourteous to her, but I must say that her contribution to the debate was particularly mean. I expressed concern when, as a new Member with no experience of the House, she was appointed to the Standards and Privileges Committee. I thought that it was unfortunate that someone with no qualifications and no knowledge of the House was appointed to that Committee.
It is my personal crusade to correct the huge injustice that was done to a former hon. Member, my friend Mr. Neil Hamilton. It is extremely unfortunate that this matter has been allowed to lie on the table, as it is now perfectly clear that members of the Committee, including Sir Gordon Downey, chose to rely on the word of a liar, Mr. Fayed, and on his employees.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I advise the hon. Member that this is a dubious line for him to take in this debate. He should return to the substance of the debate.

Mr. Howarth: I am dealing with a dubious character. The hon. Lady dealt with party political funding and referred to the funding of Members of Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), using historical precedent, also mentioned that matter.
The Labour party sought to build a case against the Conservative party for falling below standards. Mr. Fayed has been proved to be a man of ill repute, whose word cannot be trusted. Therefore, the Committee should revisit the matter in the light of what he did in relation to Tiny Rowland's safe deposit box, which was under his command.

Mr. Mike Hall: What has that got to do with the debate?

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman, who I believe has a non-speaking role in the House, asks from a sedentary position what that has to do with the debate. I am responding in particular to the remarks of the hon.


Member for Cleethorpes, to which I listened throughout. It is only fair to point that out, because a lot of Labour Members have cast aspersions on the Conservative party and our source of funding, using that as a reason for bringing these changes and the Neill committee's deliberations before the House. It is therefore entirely right to put the record straight, in so far as I am able, with my persuasion that I do not believe that my party deserves the reputation that people have sought to place around its neck.
The Labour party is fired up about this matter, but all the money that we spent at the previous general election could not bring us a result anywhere near that which we might have hoped to achieve. I do not believe, therefore, that Labour Members' concerns about party political funding should weigh so heavily on their minds, given that it is perfectly clear that money spent—however much—is not proportional to votes received.
We need not consider only the Conservative party. Sir James Goldsmith, of the Referendum party, spent about £20 million, which was not much less than the Labour party or the Conservative party spent. He did not get a single Member elected to the House, so that proves that cash does not buy seats. The Labour party should therefore start piping down on that issue.
We must be clear about what is being proposed in the committee's report. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) has accepted much of it on behalf of the Conservative party, and it has been welcomed in other quarters, but we must be clear that it will create a substantial bureaucracy. An electoral commission is to be established, new criminal offences are to be introduced, there is to be a huge bureaucracy of quarterly reporting for political parties and a lot of imposition on local party organisations. I am not sure that local parties will be able to produce the bureaucracy that is envisaged, and will be required, by the report.
I must deal with two specific points. [Interruption.] I shall not be too long. I welcome the committee ruling out state funding, which would be an entirely wrong use of taxpayers' money. I believe that I have the support of the hon. Member for Bolsover on that. If he wrote that paragraph, as he suggested, that is two issues on which he and I are ad idem. I am at one with him on the euro debate, which is why I am wearing a sterling badge, and I look forward to joining him in that battle.
I welcome what the report says. I do not believe that the country is ready to delve deep into its pocket to finance political activity. If we rule that out, we must accept the consequences, which are that we must receive money from private sources and we must have a mechanism by which that will be acceptable to the public.
Now that the Home Secretary is back with us, I hope that he will not mind if I quote from his response to my question at the Home Affairs Committee recently, to which right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) alluded. The Home Secretary said:
What we are talking about here is paying for our democracy, paying to ensure that there are informed choices made available and also paying for the machinery of our political parties. One of the things I resent"—
as I do—
is this insinuation that there is something slightly dirty about the running of political parties or the involvement of people in political parties, when this is very honourable, and without all the people

who run our political parties, most of whom are volunteers who do their work for nothing, we would not have a functioning democracy in this country. We ought to celebrate that and not somehow be ashamed of it. I also agree with you that overwhelmingly people as individuals should pay for the running of political parties and it should not come from the state because if it comes from the state then we are down the slippery slope of detached political elites and also corruption.
The Home Secretary got it absolutely right; I agree with every word. There is, however, a consequence of such a view. I fear that, in the way in which the Neill committee is seeking to ensure that individual giving is sanitised, we shall come adrift from the idea of encouraging people to give freely.
Although I welcome the proposed tax relief, disclosure will unquestionably have an adverse effect on the Conservative party. I know people who would like to give to the Conservative party not because they want an honour or to buy a policy, but because they want to support a party that stands for principles with which they agree, as they might support a charity. They will be deterred from doing so if they fear that they will be penalised by the Government of the day for supporting the Conservative party. The Government must seriously consider that before they go down the road of prescription and openness. If the result is that people are deterred from giving to political parties, the policy that the Home Secretary enunciated, with which I strongly agree, will be worth absolutely nothing.
It is extremely important that the committee's recommendations on referendums are accepted entirely. The Government have a duty to consider the matter carefully and not kick it into the long grass. They have such a duty because they have elected to take the referendum as a new and frequently used political and constitutional device. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) made clear what could happen if the Government and the Opposition of the day were united, leaving the anti vote without any core funding.

Mr. John Greenway: This has been an important debate on an issue of profound significance, not just to the health of political parties, but to the future direction of politics in this country. I sense personally that we are at an important crossroads. The Neill report signposts a clear route to the restoration of trust and confidence in the democratic process. We have travelled the alternative route for far too long, indulging in incrimination, allegations of abuse and corruption, often with the scantiest evidence or justification.
It was deeply sad that the Home Secretary, for whom, as he knows, I have the highest regard, took such an alternative route for much of his speech in opening this debate. It is surely time for us to move on. Labour in government must face up to its shortcomings and recognise the futility of pursuing a war of words over allegations of malpractice, which serve only to undermine public confidence in the House and in the very fabric of our democratic process.
I shall resist dwelling on the fact that such criticisms of political parties as there are in the report are, in the main, directed at the Labour party. We have yet to be told who contributed to the Prime Minister's blind trust when he was Leader of the Opposition. The Ecclestone affair was


a new departure because it left a clear impression that policy was influenced. Several major contributors to Labour at the election now have peerages. I know some of them personally. They are undoubtedly capable and sincere, and may well deserve their seats in the other place. I simply make the point that people who live in glasshouses should not throw stones. It does none of us any good when we do.
The committee has made a powerful and invaluable contribution to the efforts of both Government and Parliament to restore public confidence in the political process. Its early reports have been characterised by a willingness to set aside party differences and by a readiness that the recommendations be accepted without equivocation. The same should happen now, with a determination to grasp the opportunity to establish more transparent and enduring structures for the conduct of public life in which the public can have confidence.
The Labour party long argued for the committee to examine all the issues surrounding the funding of political parties. Indeed, as Lord Neill reminds us, it was the Prime Minister who gave the committee the extended terms of reference to undertake this study. Many members of the public believe that Government policy is influenced by large donations. A lack of transparency about the sources of party funding fosters this suspicion. These deep-seated concerns and damaging perceptions will not be addressed and laid to rest if Parliament and the Government fail to take heed of the Neill committee's findings, or if key recommendations are ignored or watered down in a crude and cynical attempt to gain party advantage.
We cannot be seen merely to be paying lip service to the new structures and ideas that Lord Neill has recommended. I believe that the public want to see all political parties and the Government embracing the Neill proposals, not just without demur, but with open enthusiasm—speedily, comprehensively and in earnest. There should be no question of the Government cherry-picking the bits that they like and walking away from the bits that do not suit their purposes. Labour wanted this review. It would be utterly shameful to refuse to adopt the principle behind any of the key recommendations.
It is clear from the debate that the Government do not like and are less than enthusiastic about at least three important respects. First, I wish to refer to the Short money. There has been much discussion about this in the debate but, as someone new to Front-Bench responsibilities, I know that we are inadequately resourced, and we should accept what Lord Neill has to say. I note also that several Labour Members wanted to take matters further, with funding for the Government party to oppose the Government whenever necessary.
I wish to mention tax relief. If we are to have openness of funding, it is crucial that—as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said—we encourage mass membership. The tax relief proposals will go a long way towards encouraging that. It is both sad and disappointing that the Treasury—whose hand was on the shoulder of the Home Secretary—thinks that this proposal is too expensive.
Most disappointing of all is the Government's attitude to the recommendations on the conduct of referendums. Clearly this is something that the Government did not

bargain for, yet they have been most enthusiastic about the promotion of the referendum as an important means of gauging public opinion on significant areas of public policy. Several hon. Members have said that, as Labour has encouraged this development—and intends to resort to it on future occasions—there is every reason to establish some basic ground rules. The Government cannot complain if, as a result of their own inadequacy in this regard, the Neill committee has taken this long-overdue opportunity to do the job for them.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor)—we pay tribute to him and to the other members of the committee—said that the matter was a key issue on which the committee had to make recommendations. The conduct of recent referendums has lacked consistency. As Dr. James Mitchell of the university of Strathclyde commented:
The rules of the game have differed in each referendum.
The report highlights two main concerns-th— role of the Government and the funding of campaigns. However, the Government's failure to ensure that both sides of the argument are presented to the electorate—their failure to put the case both for and against a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly and a mayor for London—deserves the greatest condemnation, as it has undermined the democratic legitimacy of the referendums' outcomes.
Indeed, Lord Neill's detailed review of the referendum on the new Welsh Assembly is a damning indictment of the way in which the referendum was conducted and the lack of fairness in the campaign. As he says in paragraph 32 of chapter 12, a fairer campaign may well have resulted in a different outcome. He also said that the referendum on the proposals for a mayor for London was only marginally better. Surely no one can be comfortable with such an incriminating and conclusive judgment.
That need not happen again. The Neill committee offers the House and the country a sensible and practical framework for the conduct of future referendums. On funding, it rightly concludes that equality cannot be guaranteed, as spending is not confined to political parties or to members of those organisations that may traditionally have campaigned openly for one party during general elections. As the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, no matter how much money one spends, one will not win if one has not got the argument. I also entirely agreed with what he said about proportional representation.
The 1975 European referendum showed that a balance could be struck in the set amount of money that each campaign received. That arrangement was sensible and, as Lord Neill recommends, we should use it as the benchmark for the future. The objective should be to guarantee that both sides of the argument are clearly stated—literature should be provided to every home to that effect.
The set funding formula will not guarantee equality, so it is ever more essential that any inequality should not be exacerbated by, as Lord Neill says, the use of taxpayers' money to support the Government's point of view. I welcome the Home Secretary's acknowledgement of the general agreement that the civil service machine of Government should remain neutral and I agree with those who suggest that the European Commission should keep out of any future referendum—if there is one—on the euro.


It would be foolish and short-sighted to ignore the importance of a proper framework for referendum campaigns. A referendum should be able to settle an argument once and for all, but it will not be able to do so if it is perceived as an unfair contest. If, as seems likely, a referendum is being used to seek a popular mandate for major constitutional change, it is surely vital to the enduring outcome of the answer to the question put that both sides of the argument are adequately stated and understood. How many times have we heard it said that the country was misled in 1975? There is no room for Government-inspired misleading propaganda. As Lord Neill's recommendations are clearly intended to last, Ministers should have a little humility and bear in mind the fact that, one day, the roles will be reversed.

Mr. Straw: They have been reversed.

Mr. Greenway: They will be reversed again, and sooner than the right hon. Gentleman thinks.
Labour's lack of commitment to the recommendations in that key area is contemptible. We have been treated today, not to a ringing endorsement, but to fudge and equivocation. The Government have been caught on the hop with a problem that they had not bargained for. Instead of facing up to the committee's principled proposals for the conduct of future referendums, the Government have chosen to prevaricate. That is a great pity, because in every respect the report heralds a fresh start in the affairs of major political parties and the conduct of election and referendum campaigns.
The Government have hinted that the legislation to implement Neill may not be introduced in the next Session—I suppose that that means that it will not—and that is disappointing given the urgency of some of the issues. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) rightly said, we should voluntarily bind ourselves to Neill's recommendations. The Minister has the chance to tell us that that is what the Government intend to do.
The report concludes:
Our recommendations form an overall integrated scheme for the reform of the funding of political parties.
It has gifted us the opportunity of a clean break, allowing us to put the past behind us and draw a line under what has gone before, often under the cloak of confidentiality. We should embrace the findings whole-heartedly.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): Despite the occasional heat that it has generated, this debate, on the whole, has been worth while. It was important to reflect the care that the Neill committee took in reaching its conclusions: much thought clearly went into the recommendations, so it was necessary for us to give the whole range of issues an airing in the House.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) tended to take a rather sneering tone. I say that more in—

Sir Norman Fowler: Sorrow than in anger?

Mr. Howarth: I want to use that phrase later, in another context, so I will save it.
I say that in the hope that, in due course, those Conservative Members will come to see that there is more that unites than divides us. I do not want to be too partisan, as I want to build a bit of consensus; but, if they are honest, they will accept that, if they were in government now, there would have been no Neill committee, no proposals, no commitment to a draft Bill and none of the debate that we have just had, because none of the issues would have been on the agenda. That is the truth of the matter. It is not entirely plausible at this juncture in the political cycle for Conservative spokesmen to take the moral high ground.
I hope that we can all agree that our starting point must be that all hon. Members and all political parties should be open and transparent about the way in which our parties and our politics are funded. As part of our commitment to strengthening democracy, I can confirm that we take the matter extremely seriously.
Again, I hope that we can all agree on the important principle that giving money to a political party, whether in small subscriptions or in large donations, is not in itself a disreputable activity. In any democracy, funding political activity is an important and necessary way of stimulating political organisation and debate. Indeed, the report says as much, but it equally makes it clear that secrecy about the source of donations will inevitably lead to suspicions about donors' motives.
The most important question that the public will want to ask if donors keep donations secret is, what have they got to hide? In the absence of any answer, the inevitable conclusion will be that such transactions involve cash for favours or other disreputable activities. That will always be the public perception of such secret donations. Often, suspicions will be without foundation, but unless everything is out in the open, the worst will be assumed. The only way to deal with that is to lift the veil of secrecy. The Neill report will help us to base the system of party funding firmly on the principles of integrity, accountability and openness.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made clear, we welcome and strongly support the broad thrust of the report. Our manifesto—influenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—said that we strongly believed that donations of £5,000 and more should be disclosed and that foreign donations should be banned. I shall not repeat all that has been said about the Conservative party and Asil Nadir, but any party that indulges in that kind of funding will always be open to criticism.
For the system to be watertight, robust and clear reporting arrangements will be needed. We welcome the recommendations for limits on campaign spending and the establishment of an election commission to police the system of disclosure and reporting.
The report contains back-up proposals on how to set up and implement the arrangements. However, it is important that the political parties have a voice to ensure that the machinery is realistic and manageable, as well as robust and comprehensive. We have agreed to authorise Home Office officials to set up dialogue with the political parties


represented in the House and a small number of others. To begin the process, officials will shortly be writing to each political party, inviting them to nominate one person to act as a conduit. I hope that all the parties will respond positively. We recognise that it is necessary to have the mechanics in place to enable everyone to feel happy with the eventual arrangements. Every party should be able to respond. Provided they are not trying to create loopholes or get round the Neill recommendations, their points will be taken seriously.
Several Conservative Members, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, mentioned the euro. The current Government information campaign has only one purpose: to prepare business for the euro, which will come into operation from 1 January 1999. It has nothing to do with the possible entry of the UK. If anyone has any doubts about that, they should read the literature that is circulating. The Treasury has produced fact sheets for businesses, particularly aimed at those that trade with countries that we already know will adopt the euro. It would be irresponsible not to give such facts and advice. If businesses were not prepared, particularly those that trade with the countries involved, it would be to their disadvantage and to the disadvantage of the British economy. The campaign is perfectly responsible. It has nothing to do with the referendum.
I accept that the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) has read chapter 12 of the report. He demonstrated a detailed knowledge of it and, on this occasion, failed to move me to say anything critical of him, although I do not necessarily agree with every word—or even many of the words—that he said.
I must say, more in sorrow than in anger, that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) made an unworthy speech which lowered the tone of the debate.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am sorry that the Minister felt that my speech lowered the tone. He has not been in the Chamber for all of the debate, but he has heard his hon. Friends and the Home Secretary chastise the Conservative party as though it had fallen below par. I do not believe that my party has done so, and I sought to give examples of where the Labour party has fallen below par.

Mr. George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman should remember a remark that I made a few moments ago. If it had not been for the behaviour of the previous Government, and of his party, the Neill committee need never have happened. Without his party's behaviour, there would have been no proposals and nothing for us to debate tonight. I do not want to be entirely at odds with the hon. Gentleman; I recognise that he has a strong personal friendship with Neil Hamilton, and that that has motivated him to some extent. However, that friendship cannot justify some of his remarks.
Several Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), suggested that some expenditure on some of the referendums that we have held had been unfair. I reject that. The Scottish and

the Welsh people would reject it too. The Opposition must answer questions themselves. In a written question in October 1992, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) asked
the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total expenditure so far by his Department on publicising the poll tax and related information.
My hon. Friend was told:
The costs to date are £5,710,500."—[Official Report, 22 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 350.]

Mrs. Laing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: No; I do not have much time.
If the previous Government could waste all that money on a tax that no one wanted, and that eventually had to be withdrawn, we will take no lessons from the Opposition on how to promote referendums.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, we want to study the proposals on tax relief, which have a measure of support among the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. If we are to give tax relief, the Opposition must recognise that it cannot come from nowhere. Revenues that the Government would have had for, say, education or health would be forgone. We have to weigh that loss in the balance when we make a decision on the tax relief proposals.

Shona McIsaac: I am intrigued by what my hon. Friend says about tax relief. In the Neill committee's report, Lord Parkinson is cited as saying that the Tory party technically does not exist. Can we give tax relief to something that does not exist?

Mr. Howarth: The electorate almost made that a fact at the general election. I welcome the fact that there is a considerable difference between the Conservative party memorandum published in the report and the extent to which the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has welcomed the report's proposals. The right hon. Gentleman was gracious enough to say that the report did not reflect exactly what his party wanted, but that the proposals were sufficiently balanced for him to feel inclined to accept them in the round. That is a good way to deal with it.
The Government welcome the report. It reflects a commitment that we made in our manifesto to require full disclosure of donations above £5,000 and to ban foreign funding. Following this debate, we will move forward by preparing a draft Bill for publication next summer and by legislating before the next general election. The Committee on Standards in Public Life has performed a valuable service—that is my view and I hope that the House shares it—not only for politics but for the country. I hope that that will in some way restore the public's confidence in politics. If we are to clean up the politics of Britain—and the public demand nothing less—whatever our politics we need to give the proposals the proper weight, seriousness and priority that they deserve. We will do so.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Statute Law Repeals Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — STATUTE LAW REPEALS BILL [LORDS]

Read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Consolidation Bills),
That the Bill be not committed.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Question agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

EDUCATION

That the Education (Infant Class Sizes)(England) Regulations 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 1973), be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

SOCIAL SECURITY

That the Social Security (Contributions) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 2211) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

That the Social Security (Welfare to Work) Regulations 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 2231) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

DISABLED PERSONS

That the Disabled Persons (Disability Discrimination) (Exemption for Small Employers) Order 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 2618), be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — COMMITTEES

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the eight motions relating to Committees.

Ordered,

CATERING COMMITTEE

That Mr. Thomas Graham be discharged from the Catering Committee and Rosemary McKenna be added to the Committee.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE

That Ms Margaret Hodge and Mr. Gerry Steinberg be discharged from the Education and Employment Committee and Mr. Gordon Marsden and Mr. Malcolm Wicks be added to the Committee.

HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

That Mr. Ross Cranston and Ms Beverley Hughes be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Miss Melanie Johnson and Mr. Paul Stinchcombe be added to the Committee.

INFORMATION COMMITTEE

That Mr. John Whittingdale be discharged from the Information Committee and Mr. Tim Collins be added to the Committee.

NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

That Mr. Desmond Browne be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Mr. Stephen McCabe be added to the Committee.

SOCIAL SECURITY COMMITTEE

That Mr. Paul Goggins, Ms Patricia Hewitt, Mr. Frank Roy, Ms Gisela Stuart and Mr. Malcolm Wicks be discharged from the Social Security Committee and Mr. Vernon Coaker, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Mr. Michael Foster (Hastings and Rye), Mrs. Joan Humble and Kali Mountford be added to the Committee.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY COMMITTEE

That Gillian Merron be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Helen Southworth be added to the Committee.

TREASURY COMMITTEE

That Mr. Charles Clarke and Ms Ruth Kelly be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Dr. Lewis Moonie and Jacqui Smith be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day — Information Technology (Rural Schools)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Mr. David Taylor: For me, 1 May 1997 was an important day. It marked the completion of three decades in the world of computing. In that last proper job before becoming a Member of Parliament, I worked in software development and computer management in local government, so I have a professional interest in the subject of this debate. As important as that interest is the fact that the seat I represent has a substantial number of village primary schools, all but one of which I have visited in recent months as part of that fact-finding activity that is pursued by virtually all newly elected Members.
I am writing a report to be presented to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, which summarises the reaction of the 51 schools in my constituency to the impact of Labour's education policies and priorities in the first 18 months of our Government. Much of the comment was positive, but there are a number of real difficulties, such as teacher morale, resources and the rate of expected change faced by schools—issues that I hope to raise in future debates. However, the subject of this debate cropped up so frequently in my discussions with heads, teachers, governors, parents and students, that it needed an immediate airing, especially in the light of last Friday's announcement by the Prime Minister of the information technology package for schools, worth approximately £1 billion.
That announcement will be most welcome in all schools—urban and rural, secondary and primary—because all schools are experiencing financial, timetabling and resource pressures in delivering the IT curriculum. I hope that this short debate will show why small rural primary schools need special attention and support.
The village school that I attended with my sisters, following two generations of our family and followed by my four daughters, is a few yards from my front gate. For many years, I was active as a governor of the school, and saw at first hand how small schools were often left to implement the grand designs of the previous Government with too few resources, no preparation time and little training, without appreciation but with lots of exhortation, and not infrequent criticism and condemnation.
The teaching profession in 1992 and 1997 asked general election candidates for a period of stability. They were not saying, "Stop the world, we want to get off," but urging Government to introduce only properly resourced, adequately piloted change, when schools had been consulted and staff trained. Schools were often ranked but never thanked; frequently named and shamed, but rarely sustained and supported. The targets set were constantly moved. Like many pioneers, they were hit by the arrows. I hope—no, I am confident—that things can only get better.
We must establish a real partnership of equals, among Government, local education authorities and schools in driving forward our top political priority. The massive extra sums made available for schools over the life of this Government must be used effectively, as there are risks in investing in information technology, as I hope to show.
IT is rapidly transforming the way we work, use our leisure, and, crucially, how we learn. In our small village schools, often with fewer than half a dozen teachers, there can be difficulties in implementing IT coherently and satisfactorily. It is no use having a gift-wrapped, Pentium multi-media machine delivered, when the responsible member of staff is already delivering the new literacy strategy, planning the numeracy initiative, getting ready for key stage 2 standard assessment tests, marking a set of science projects, and fund raising for musical instruments. In smaller schools in particular, staff must wear several hats. Cramming yet another on to an overstretched head without proper preparation courts disaster.
Training must be structured continuing, and must take account of the difficulties in releasing teachers and other staff from smaller schools. A series of half-day courses, on-line tutorials or pre-dawn Open university programmes will not be adequate; it must be done properly. Teachers with little or no IT background need consistent, continuous professional development. Most teachers entered the profession before the personal computer as we know it burst on to the scene in the mid-1980s. The number is proportionately bigger in small schools.
Even now, the IT content of teacher training courses is limited, with little follow-up. It is unsurprising that the IT skills acquired can quickly become outdated. Although there has been some generic training in the schools on-line project, there is still a substantial lack of confidence and competence. For the smaller school, it is not possible within timetabling and staffing constraints to carve out sufficient free time for staff to develop their expertise, for instance, in using the internet as a teaching resource. The urgent crowds out the important. Whatever their attitude to IT, wherever they are on the spectrum, from perplexed anxiety to zealous enthusiasm, teachers are trying to acquire new skills without budget or non-contact time.
Serving teachers are sometimes put under pressure to train their colleagues. While sitting next to the newly qualified teacher can be useful, too often it means doing it on the cheap and exploiting the good will of staff who happen to be IT-literate, confident software users or unafraid of tackling hardware difficulties. These technological paragons are rarer in village staff rooms than Chris Woodhead fans.
My preferred training alternative is external providers. I strongly endorse the view of the National Union of Teachers that such training providers must demonstrate the application of IT and not make it an isolated subject area. Problem-solving approaches to teaching must be given priority. Conventional training, whether live or computer-based, can be highly wasteful. It is often better to deliver the operating detail as it is required. There is an analogy. Most can cook a tasty dish with a recipe book. Repetition commits the skill to memory, and fresh dishes can be brought out quickly.
Special arrangements are needed to provide a cost-effective support service, readily available on site or on line to families of small schools. Until small schools have guaranteed access to that high-quality technical support, it would be ludicrous for them to have to meet nationally imposed IT targets.
Perhaps the best way to provide that service in rural areas is via local education advisory services with a role similar to that of the laboratory technician in secondary


and larger schools. Primary schools welcome the £500 per teacher allocated for IT training under the new opportunities lottery fund, but is it not too much of a gamble to allow that crucial investment to be financed by an electronic raffle? The nation's children deserve better.
In my visits to north-west Leicestershire schools, I am often impressed by the leading-edge hardware I see, but the finance tends to depend on the generosity, energy or affluence of parent fund raisers. In some areas, keeping schools' computers up to date and compatible with one another is extremely difficult. With tighter budgets come more constraints and greater risks; thus, purchasing policy tends to be ultra-cautious, and old equipment is not unknown, with all its associated costs and problems. I was not at all surprised by a recent national survey that rated half of all school hardware obsolete.
In smaller schools, lack of available space is not an issue restricted to disk drives: rotas are necessary in cramped classrooms to control access. That is a major disadvantage for those students who have no home access to a PC, let alone the internet. My straw poll showed that such students comprised up to two thirds of all pupils in North-West Leicestershire. Inequality of PC and network access is certainly a rural issue.
It is said that a sizeable minority of smaller schools throughout the country have no budget, training or staff development policy for IT. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that that will eventually make it impossible for those schools to deliver our ambitious national curriculum in IT? I hope that he will give an outline of the Government's thinking on the most appropriate application of information technology in primary schools; for, without a coherent strategy, the finest training, fastest hardware and fanciest software in the world will fail—and expensively so.
The Daily Telegraph is not yet required reading by Millbank. Nevertheless, I read a thought—provokingeven depressing—article in that newspaper on 21 October. Leicester university had surveyed a major pilot project in leading-edge IT usage in a large group of Bristol schools. The team's findings included:
much of what the children were doing was unchallenging and routine. Many (for example) were quite happy to give the appearance of being engaged in useful activity whilst writing `Manchester United' in different fonts.
It is not only university academics who harbour great unease about the way in which IT is applied in our schools. Let me quote the words of a teacher at a local primary school that was—unfairly, I feel—criticised by the Ofsted inspection team for its work in IT:
The major issue raised (lack of time in the classroom) cannot be effectively addressed. No matter how expert the staff, how up-to-date the equipment, it is not possible to give the children continual instruction and practice in computer skills within the (crowded) primary curriculum.
Another comment by a local teacher was:
Children of primary age can only develop processing and retrieval techniques if they practise regularly—but we don't have the equipment at school and they don't have it at home. At the moment the millions of pounds pumped into inadequate, out-dated equipment is delivering very limited opportunities to primary pupils.
Finally, the words of a teacher experienced in IT:
I just cannot teach a class of 30 children the national curriculum requirements in IT with one computer. We're so frustrated, we're on the point of giving up.

Those are not the comments of fin-de-siecle Luddites, but of hard-working, committed teachers in successful village primary schools. They are overwhelmed with initiatives, anxious to come up to expectations, but fearful that they will invest heavily of their time and energy in IT only to find the curriculum changed, the software dated, and the hardware switched on but the children switched off. Please will the Minister respond to their collective cri de coeur with some urgently needed reassurance?
The pressures of primary school life lead to isolated use of computers in classrooms. Pupils' experience of IT may be unrelated to what is being taught at the time in other curricular areas. A lack of space can mean that the chance for one-to-one intervention by staff makes the effective application of IT for cross-curricular learning impossible for many primary schools and most small rural ones.
The prime use of computers in the early years is always to support and reinforce the learning process. If IT is solely an extra set of skills to be learned, many teachers believe that we are missing the point, and I agree. Too many potato chips on the school dinner menu is unhealthy; ill-considered use of silicon chips in the classroom is not good for children, either. Like its TV cousin, the PC monitor can damage fitness for the world outside.
The writer of the article in The Daily Telegraph concluded:
if the Government thinks that pouring hundreds of millions of pounds into wiring up schools to the 'information super highway' is going to drive up education standards, it is sadly mistaken.
I do not share that pessimistic outlook. Indeed, I am convinced that the single most important use of IT is to transform education, and improve the lot of those who work within it.
The potential of the national grid for learning to benefit all aspects of life in rural primary schools is vast, but we need to do, more—much more—to carry the teaching profession with us, particularly in village schools, as our society grapples with the implications of the information revolution, and our economy demands people who are familiar with its tools of change. This is not just about money; the Government still have a major task on their hands to persuade the world of primary education that appropriate training, continued technical support and adequate curricular space are part of our IT strategy, and that we and they can deliver the goods.
I am certain that the Minister will be able to solve that problem, and I look forward to hearing his solution.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) on securing the debate, and on the way in which he argued the case for his constituents.
It will be common ground in the House that the potential of information technology in improving communication between rural and isolated primary schools has been recognised worldwide. That is one reason why Scandinavian countries are investing heavily in IT, and Australia and Canada have been in the forefront of the development of IT in education, including the installation of the necessary infrastructure.


The UK leads other G7 countries in the number of computers in schools. There are 18 pupils to a computer in primary schools, nine pupils to a computer in secondary schools, and only four pupils to a computer in special schools. Those raw statistics do not evade my hon. Friend's key point—that we shall be able to transform our performance on IT in schools only if teachers in rural primary schools and others feel that the technology is theirs to control, use and benefit from to the extent that they can stretch and develop their children.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Minister agree that we cannot depend on teachers volunteering to take training and become competent, and that we should aim to provide training for every teacher in every school?

Mr. Clarke: I shall come to that point in a moment when I deal with teacher training, but my short answer is that, although the hon. Gentleman makes an important point, I only partially agree with him.
We shall make progress only if teachers feel that the technology is for them. That brings me to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire. In using IT, not only in a separate part of the curriculum but in teaching English, maths and other parts of the curriculum, it is exceptionally important that teachers feel confident and able to use the technology well.
My hon. Friend's point about appropriate technology is entirely correct, and the Manchester United logos that he described are an example of a serious problem. That is why we are focusing our teacher training initiative on ensuring not only that teachers feel confident in using the basic hardware but that they are applying information technology to particular educational needs, at every key stage and in every subject. There is a great danger, which my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, that we shall have hardware lying around the classroom with no one using it, and money being wasted. I believe that we must contest that problem by ensuring that teachers understand, and are aware of, the technology that is at their disposal, and are able to use it well.
That is why we have established a £235 million teacher training programme in IT. That substantial amount of money is needed precisely because of the demoralisation that my hon. Friend described, and because there are very low levels of teacher IT capacity and ability in many schools. I take this opportunity to state that I do not believe that that is because of any Luddism or backward-looking approaches on the part of teachers. The overwhelming majority of teachers want to use IT, and believe that children will benefit from it, but have not been given the training and the opportunity in the classroom to develop their ability and move it forward.
I turn now to the point raised by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs). I believe that the levels of competence and capacity in many of the country's schools—it is probably less of a problem in Northern Ireland, which is leading the way in this area, as in many others—are still very low. The last thing that teachers need at this stage is to be told, "You will do this or that." Teachers must be encouraged to believe that, by acquiring the relevant skills and qualifications, they will be able to

do their jobs better. My knowledge of the teaching profession leads me to believe—quite profoundly—that the overwhelming majority of teachers want to benefit from training, and will take the opportunity to do so on a voluntary basis.
I acknowledge that, in two or three years, I might return to the House and say something slightly different. For instance, if we were achieving 95 per cent. levels of competence, and 5 per cent. of teachers said that they did not want training, rather than 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. levels of competence and 80 per cent. of teachers wanting to do better, my answer might be slightly different. However, in the context of the present situation in England and Wales, the level of competence and skill on the one hand and enthusiasm on the other leads me to believe that the voluntary method is the best way to proceed.
That is why we have established a substantial teacher training programme. It aims to raise teachers who have a low or zero level of competence to a level of some competence, and, critically, also aims to ensure that people can apply their educational expertise and move it forward in particular disciplines. We have commissioned a tendering process that the Teacher Training Agency is carrying through, and tenders close on 20 November this year. We shall see what bids come in from people seeking to provide teacher training of the kind that we have described.
We have already received substantial and good bids from consortiums of local education authorities, colleges and so on. We have also received some talented and good bids from IT companies and educational organisations, often working together in order to overcome the problem—to which my hon. Friend referred—of teachers receiving a bit of training and no more. That would be a waste of money—my hon. Friend's point was very appropriate.
We also take my hon. Friend's point that it is no use training teachers but providing little on-going support. The present LEA adviser system is very patchy: only half of LEAs have a very good IT support system. That system has been run down in the past, and must be rebuilt.

Mr. David Taylor: I accept that. I worked for a local authority that had a very good LEA support system. Is it not possible to invest in all LEAs in order to bring the performance of the patchy ones to the level of the best?

Mr. Clarke: I hope, and believe, that that will be one result of this process. Although some commercial companies provide support to individual schools—for example, through school management systems and administration, which is an important support offered to local schools—there is no doubt that we need a broader, better network. That might be best offered through a more efficient local authority network system.
I also concede my hon. Friend's important point that there are key pedagogic issues regarding how technology is used in the classroom.
When I took on my ministerial responsibilities, I discovered that some of those issues had not been fully addressed, and in my opinion they remain to be fully addressed. I am not sure which is the best form of technology to provide in the classroom. Is it a whiteboard? Is it a better developed overhead projector? Is it a load


of PCs? We have limited resources, and the pedagogic issues, subject by subject, age by age, are different. They need to be thought through carefully, for the reasons that my hon. Friend identified—if they are not, we shall have inadequate results and wasted resources.
In that context, I emphasise that we are conducting a review of the national curriculum for the year 2000, and that the way in which IT can and should be used most effectively in different subject areas is being specifically addressed. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend some reassurance.
I make two concluding points. First, I wish to comment on the Luddite opinions quoted by my hon. Friend—from which he dissociated himself—from articles by John Clare in the Daily Telegraph. There is a view that all this money is wasted—that IT can offer nothing, and that it diverts education from the fundamentals in which traditional education has led.
I reject that view, as do the Government. I believe that the teachers to whom my hon. Friend spoke rejected it. They understand that the future lies with the IT society. The older of us may regret that, but it is a fact, and it is the way to go forward. If we leave our children ill equipped to deal with that society, we do them no service. The argument in that Daily Telegraph article—that we should leave it all aside—is a fundamentally ill-considered view, which is rejected by the vast majority of people in education in this country.
I was rather shocked to see that, in the response to the Prime Minister's launch of further spending on Friday 6 November, some spokespeople of other parties—lining up with John Clare—simply said that the money was being wasted, and that it would be better spent on books. I think that the Conservative party lined up with the Luddite tendency.
Finally, I turn to the specific subject of the debate—IT provision in rural primary schools. As my hon. Friend coherently argued, IT is especially important to rural primary schools. Small schools need stronger communities, including IT communities, to offer stimulation, and to support what they do. That is why, in the initiatives that we have taken forward, we have given specific priority to rural primary schools.
First, we have said that, in distributing the £105 million of standards fund money for the national grid for learning, local education authorities should take specific account of the additional needs of primary schools, small schools and isolated schools. Money from that fund will be targeted—extra priority will be given to rural primary schools, for the reasons stated.

Mr. David Taylor: How will that targeting take place—through the LEA or by a more direct route?

Mr. Clarke: It is through the LEA, because that item of the standards fund is allocated through local education

authorities, but the guidance that we have issued specifically asked them to give particular attention to that need. I urge my hon. Friend to tell his local education authority that it should give specific priority to the schools in his constituency when it allocates that resource.
On teacher training, we have specifically recognised—the second element in the funding—the need to focus on rural schools. Although the funding made available to a school will be based mainly on the number of teachers in the school, we want to recognise the special difficulties of small schools by allocating a specific lump sum of £750 to every school, regardless of size, followed by an amount for each teacher.
For example, if the amount per teacher in England was £500, a three-teacher school would have a total of £2,250, including the lump sum—equivalent to £750 per teacher. A 30-teacher school, with 10 times as many teachers, would have a total of £15,750, equivalent to £525 per teacher, or 70 per cent. of the figure per teacher of the three-teacher school.

Mr. David Taylor: My hon. Friend represents a seat in a county that is largely rural. Leicestershire is less rural, but nevertheless has problems of access. Will he confirm that, in establishing the level of funding, he will pay particular attention to travelling costs and the availability of courses?

Mr. Clarke: We shall give particular attention to the issues that my hon. Friend raises. I emphasise that we are taking account of the specific needs of IT in rural schools. I hope that that discrimination in favour of rural schools will be welcomed.
I conclude by again congratulating my hon. Friend on securing the debate. The subject is important, and I am glad that he has highlighted it.

Madam Speaker: Order. The House ordered last Thursday that I should not adjourn until any message from the Lords relating to the Scotland Bill had been received. As no such message has yet been received, I must now suspend the sitting. Arrangements will be made for the Division bells to ring five minutes before I resume the Chair, in order for me to adjourn the House at that time.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.